Salinas City Council
May 16, 2023

Tuesday, May 16, 2023
4:00 PM
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas, CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org

SALINAS ROTUNDA
City Council
Mayor Kimbley Craig
Councilmembers:

Carla Viviana González, District 1 - Tony Barrera, District 2 Steve McShane, District 3 - Orlando Osornio, District 4 Andrew Sandoval, District 5 - Anthony Rocha, District 6 Steven S. Carrigan, City Manager
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office: (831) 758-7381
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023

ZOOM WEBINAR PARTICIPATION
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88569726317
To participate telephonically, call any number below:

US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 885 6972 6317
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

PROCLAMATION
National Public Works Week, May 21-27, 2023
National Emergency Medical Services Week, May 21-27, 2023

COMMENDATIONS
National Mikva Soapbox Speech Competition Scholars

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES
If you wish to make a general public comment or comment on a specific agenda item, you are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting in person. Public comment may also be submitted via email at [email protected] and will be entered into the record.

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME RESTRICTIONS
Public comments generally are limited to two minutes per speaker; the Mayor may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Receive public communications on items that are not on the agenda and that are in the City of Salinas’ subject matter jurisdiction. Comments on Consent, Consideration, and Closed session items should be held until the items are reached. The public may request that the legislative body consider adding an item for consideration on a future agenda. The public may comment on scheduled agenda items, including closed session items, as they are considered.

City of Salinas Page 2 Printed on 5/10/2023
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023

CONSIDERATION
ID#23-311 Ordinance Repealing Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code (Prohibition on Cruising)
Recommendation: Consider adopting an Ordinance to repeal the prohibition on cruising codified in Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ID#23-283 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan and Citizen Participation Plan Amendments Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the City of Salinas' United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and its submittal to HUD; approving amendments to the City of Salinas' Citizen Participation Plan (CPP); and authorizing the Mayor to execute any related agreements, contracts, certifications, or amendments related to the funding allocations set forth in the FY 2023-2024 AAP.

ID#23-309 Republic Services Garbage & Recycling Rates FY 23-24 Recommendation: Approve a Resolution finding the proposed annual adjustments to Republic Services of Salinas' (Republic Services) Schedule of Service Fees and Schedule of Rates for Residential and Commercial Customers effective July 1, 2023, to be both reasonable and within the terms of the Collection Services Agreement.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 2023
The following noticed Public Hearings are continued to June 13, 2023.

ID#23-303 General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and Rezone 2022-001; Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Residential Medium Density (8-15 Units/Acre) to Residential High Density (15-24 Units/Acre) and Rezone from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1) of a vacant 2.6-acre lot located at 1 Preston Street Recommendation: Approve a Resolution affirming the findings, adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2022-002) changing the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density; and dopt an Ordinance to Rezone from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density (RZ 2022-001).

ID#23-268 Parking Citation Fee Update
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution adopting the updated schedule of parking citation fines.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

ID#23-348 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve minutes of May 2, 2023.

City of Salinas Page 3 Printed on 5/10/2023
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023
ID#23-351 Financial Claims
Recommendation: Approve financial claims report.

ID#23-267 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project, CIP 9188, HSIPL-5045(035) - Final Acceptance
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution accepting the Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project (CIP 9188, HSIPL-5045(035) for maintenance and responsibility.

ID#23-276 2022-2023 Pavement Maintenance Project, CIP No. 9981, 9120, 9080 Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the 2022-2023 Pavement Maintenance Project, CIP No. 9981, 9120, 9080; awarding a contract to Granite Construction Company for the 2022-2023 Pavement Maintenance Project, CIP No. 9981, 9120, 9080 in the amount of $8,138,006.96; and approve a transfer of $1,200,000.00 Measure X Bond Funds.

ID#23-279 Clean California Grant Application for AMOR Salinas Education and Outreach
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing staff to apply for the Clean California Local Grant Program Cycle 2 funding for up to $750,000 for AMOR Salinas education and outreach and authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded to the City.

ID#23-281 Cesar Chavez Park Soccer Field; CIP No. 9005
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the Cesar Chavez Park Soccer Field, CIP No. 9005; approving the appropriation of funds in the amount of $200,000 from Measure G fund balance to CIP No. 9005; and approving award of contract to Norcal Contractor for the Cesar Chavez Park Soccer Field; CIP No. 9005 in the amount of $1,456,684.92 (Bid Items 1-35).

ID#23-284 2023 Continuum of Care Emergency Solutions Grant Program Application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Resolution approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2023-2024 funding year of the State ESG program, Continuum of Care Allocation NOFA; authorizing the submission of an application to HCD for the 2023 HCD ESG Program CoC Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA); and authorizing the appropriation of awarded 2023 HCD ESG CoC funds.

ID#23-300 Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of Active Transportation Grant funds in the amount of $8,079,000; authorize the establishment of a new CIP project, "Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project," with appropriations totaling $9,635,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Active Transportation Grant Program.

ID#23-302 Display of Commemorative Flag - Progress Pride Flag Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the display of a commemorative Progress Pride Flag at City Hall from June 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023.

ID#23-304 Uniform Rental Laundry Services Amendment No. 3 City of Salinas Page 4 Printed on 5/10/2023
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving Amendment No. 3 to the agreement with Cintas Incorporation for an additional amount of $15,750 for services through the reminder of the agreement term.

ID#23-305 Records Retention Schedule Update
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution adopting a new Records Retention Schedule.

ID#23-307 Renewal of Microsoft Software Assurance
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the renewal of Microsoft Software Assurance from CDW-G LLC., in an amount not to exceed $84,000.00.

ID#23-318 Granicus, Inc. Subscription Renewal - Government Experience Cloud Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the annual subscription renewal with Granicus, Inc. in the amount of $35,175.00 for the Government Experience Cloud for FY 24.

ID#23-319 Direct Purchase of Six (6) LUCAS Devices
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the purchase of six (6) LUCAS devices and respective service contracts from Stryker Medical, at a cost not to exceed $165,620.26, plus a 10% contingency.

ID#23-320 Resolution Designating Authorized Signers for FEMA and Cal OES Financial Assistance Application
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, Finance Director or Director of Public Works to execute and file the application for obtaining federal financial assistance with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) on behalf of the City of Salinas.

ID#23-321 Professional Services Agreement with Kimley Horn, Inc. for the Salinas Active Transportation Plan
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution rescinding Resolution Number 22640; authorizing a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Salinas and Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Active Transportation Plan; and authorizing the use of Active Transportation Plan funds up to $364,203.17.

ID#23-324 Agreement with SCI Consulting Group (SCI) to Provide Commercial Cannabis Tax Assessment and Monitoring Services
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for a not to exceed amount of $180,000 for a term from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, to conduct cannabis tax assessment and monitoring services.

ID#23-340 Assembly Bill 513 (Rodriguez) and Senate Bill 831 (Caballero) Recommendation: Consider approving a Resolution expressing the City of Salinas's support of Assembly Bill 513 and Senate Bill 831.

COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Receive communication from Councilmembers on reports, appointments and future agenda items. Councilmember comments are generally limited to three minutes.

City of Salinas Page 5 Printed on 5/10/2023
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023

CLOSED SESSION
Receive public communications from the audience on Closed session items.

The City Council will recess to closed session pursuant to:

ID#23-349 a. Performance Evaluation and Labor Relations - California Government Code Section 54957 and 54957.6, public employee performance evaluation and labor relations with unrepresented employee (City Manager).
b. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Santa Rita Union High School District, et al. v. City of Salinas et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242.
c. Pending Litigation - California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with legal counsel regarding, Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas, et al., Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV00340.

ADJOURNMENT
_____________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AGENDA MATERIAL / ADDENDUM
Any addendums will be posted within 72 hours of regular meetings or 24 hours of special meetings and in accordance with Californian Government Code Section 54954.2 and 54956. City Council agenda reports and other writings distributed to the legislative body may be viewed at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, and are posted on the City’s website at www.cityofsalinas.org in accordance with California Government Code section 54597.5. The City Council may take action that is different than the proposed action reflected on the agenda.

Disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested by any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting. Language interpretation may be requested as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Requests should be referred to the City Clerk’s Office At 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, 758-7381, as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the city by dialing 711 for the California Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This agenda was posted on May 10, 2023 at the City Clerk’s Office, in the Council Rotunda, and the City's website.

Meetings are streamed live at https://salinas.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx, live on Comcast Channel 25 and on http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel at 4:00 p.m. on the date of the regularly scheduled meeting. Meetings are rebroadcast throughout the day on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Wednesday following the meeting. For the most City of Salinas Page 6 Printed on 5/10/2023
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 16, 2023
up-to-date Broadcast Schedule for The Salinas Channel on Comcast 25, please visit or subscribe to our Google Calendar located at http://tinyurl.com/SalinasChannel25. All past City Council meetings may also be viewed on the Salinas Channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel
City of Salinas Page 7 Printed on 5/10/2023
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-311, Version: 1
Ordinance Repealing Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code (Prohibition on Cruising) Consider adopting an Ordinance to repeal the prohibition on cruising codified in Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/10/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

POLICE DEPARTMENT
TITLE: ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE XIV OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE—PROHIBITION ON

CRUISING
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Consider adopting an ordinance repealing the prohibition on cruising codified at Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting the proposed ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed Ordinance is presented to the Council at the request of Council members González and Sandoval. Additionally, Council members Barrera and Osornio have served as members of the Car Club Subcommittee which has over several meetings discussed alternatives to the existing prohibition on cruising. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is attached to this Report for reference.

On June 16, 1992, the City Council adopted an ordinance adding Article XIV to Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code to prohibit the activity of cruising on streets where signs noticing the prohibition have been posted. (Ordinance No. 2169 (N.C.S.)). A copy of Ordinance No. 2169 is attached to this Report for reference. Six Council members voted in favor of the prohibition and one Council member was absent from the meeting. The minutes from the City Council’s June 9, 1992, meeting indicate that cruising had negative effects on the community ranging from traffic congestion and minor criminal offenses, including alcohol offenses, littering, and noise complaints; to major criminal activity, such as weapons offenses and physical violence. A copy of the City Council’s meeting minutes from June 9, 1992, is attached to this Report for reference.

As defined in Section 20-170(b) of the Salinas Municipal Code, cruising is define as the “repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a traffic-control point in traffic which is congested at or near the traffic-control point, as determined by the ranking police officer on duty within the affected area, within a six-hour period and after the vehicle operator has been given an adequate written notice Page | 2
that further driving past the traffic-control point will be a violation.” A traffic-control point is a location along a public street or highway utilized by a police officer on duty in the affected areas as an observation point in order to monitor traffic conditions for potential violations of the cruising ordinance.

Legal Considerations
Cruising—the act of driving repeatedly past a traffic control point—is not a violation of state law, although California Vehicle Code section 21100(k) authorizes local agencies to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or by resolution regulating cruising. Consistent with this delegation of authority, Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code prohibits the activity of cruising. Any violation of the prohibition may be cited criminally as an infraction. Infractions cannot result in an arrest (unless an individual refuses to sign the citation) and results in fine.

Emergency vehicles, buses, taxicabs, and other business vehicles being driven for business purposes are excluded from the prohibition.

California Assembly Bill 436 proposes to repeal subdivision (k) of California Vehicle Code section 21100, thereby removing local agencies’ authority to regulate the activity of cruising. AB 436 also proposed to repeal California Vehicle Code section 24008 which makes it unlawful to operate a passenger vehicle that has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. California Vehicle Code section 24008 is essentially a prohibition on lowriding. A copy of AB 436 is attached to this Report for reference. AB 436 is progressing toward approval: AB 436 passed the Assembly on April 27, 2023, and was ordered to the Senate. AB 436 has been read once in the Senate and as of the May 2, 2023, was with the Senate’s Committee on Rules for assignment.

The California Legislature has already approved Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 176, filed with the Secretary of State on August 30, 2022. In passing ACR 176, the California Legislature found that “[c]ruising is the custom of leisurely driving on urban boulevards in dropped and dolledup vehicles, that includes meetups of lowrider, vintage, and custom vehicle owners[; c]ruising is all about fun, the love of cars, the love of culture, and the craft of maintaining a vintage vehicle[; c]ruising in some form has been popular in California since the first American teenagers obtained vehicles in the 1930’s[; and c]ruising along a specific route became popular after World War II within individuals of Mexican heritage driving lowriders in southern California towns, and cruising rapidly became a popular activity among teenagers.” AC 176, therefore, “celebrate[s] the history and culture of cruising and encourage[s] local officials and law enforcement to work with local car clubs to conduct safe cruising events.”
Council members and members of the public have in the past raised concerns regarding “speed contests” or “sideshows.” These activities are to be distinguished from cruising; these activities are regulated under the California Vehicle Code, whereas cruising was left to the discretion of local authorities. The City has tools to address speed contests or sideshows including California Vehicle Code section 23103(a), which makes it unlawful to engage in reckless driving, e.g., doing Page | 3
doughnuts in the middle of the street1; California Vehicle Code section 23109(a), which makes it unlawful to participate in speed contests, i.e., racing2; and California Vehicle Code section 23109(c), which makes it unlawful to engage in an exhibition of speed, e.g., spinning tires in the middle of the street3. The City of Salinas has also adopted an ordinance making it unlawful to be a spectator at a speed contest or reckless driving exhibition (Article X of Chapter 5 of the Salinas Municipal Code).4
Law Enforcement Considerations
Members of the public have raised concerns regarding cruising and the possibility that cruising may return to Salinas. From the Salinas Police Department’s perspective, the existing prohibition on cruising should be revisited and the City Council should evaluate whether it is still necessary and effective in addressing the negative impacts of cruising. As outlined in the report, the prohibition has been in place since 1992, and was implemented due to concerns about traffic congestion and criminal activity. Whether the prohibition is repealed or temporarily suspended through a pilot program, the Salinas Police Department will evaluate and maintain data on traffic congestion and criminal activity and can report back to the City Council, as needed, and will work to keep the community safe.

Repealing the prohibition on cruising could have positive effects on the community by providing a safe and enjoyable activity for car enthusiasts and an opportunity for increased economic activity, such as car shows and events, which could benefit local businesses.

Subcommittee Meetings
The Car Club Subcommittee had its first meeting February 17, 2023. At the Subcommittee’s first meeting, a Committee objective was identified which was “to focus on community and car club engagement and to revisit Salinas Municipal Code Chapter 20, Article XIV – Cruising Ordinance.” Representatives from the Salinas Police Department, Salinas Fire Department, Administration, and Library and Community Services Department were present with the appointed Subcommittee members Orlando Osornio and Tony Barrera. At this meeting, a pilot cruising program was discussed and proposed for August 2023. Councilmember Osornio recommended the City host a community meeting with different stakeholders to receive input regarding the ordinance and consideration of a pilot program. Additional Subcommittee meetings took place on March 10, 2023, and April 21, 2023. The focus of the meetings was to identify outreach opportunities and plan the community meeting which took place on April 25, 2023.

Community Meeting
On April 25, 2023, the City of Salinas hosted a “Salinas Cruising Ordinance” community meeting.

There were over 200 attendees at the meeting at Sherwood Hall, with the majority of the attendees

1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=23103.&lawCode=VEH 2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=23109.&lawCode=VEH 3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=23109.&lawCode=VEH 4https://library.municode.com/ca/salinas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH5PUPEMO_ARTXSPS

PCOREDREX
Page | 4
representing the car club community. A brief presentation was given regarding the history of the no cruising ordinance, the steps the State Assembly and other cities in the region are taking regarding this topic, and a consideration of a pilot cruising program proposed by the Car Club Subcommittee. Following the presentation, members of the public were encouraged to provide feedback and ask questions regarding what was presented. Approximately ten members of the public voiced their support to allow cruising in Salinas. Attendees were also given an opportunity to complete a survey regarding the ordinance amendment. Below are the results of the in-person survey:

Which of the following best applies to you?
Car Enthusiast Business Owner Resident TOTAL
98 20 44 162
Would you like to amend the no cruising ordinance?
Yes No
109 6 116
Are you interested in a pilot cruising program?
Yes No
74 32 106
How would you like to stay informed?
Social Media Email
68 35 103
A strong representation from the car enthusiast community present, resulted in over 60% of the responses received from those that consider themselves to be “car enthusiast”.

Additional outreach and engagement is being conducted via an online survey and social media engagement. Results of that survey will be presented at this meeting.

A copy of the Power Point presentation from the April 25, 2023, community meeting is attached to this Report for reference.

Alternative Available to Council
Instead of repealing the prohibition on cruising in its entirety, the City Council may institute a pilot program to allow cruising to occur on a temporary, limited basis. This would allow the City Council and the community an opportunity to determine whether a full repeal would work. As discussed with the Car Club Subcommittee and as presented at the April 25, 2023, community meeting, the City Council could implement a pilot program to allow cruising to first occur in August 2023, with the cruise being on a fixed route from East Bernal/North Main Street to East Curtis/North Main Street with “staging” to occur at the Sherwood Hall parking lots. The cruise would be permitted to occur between the hours of 5:00 P.M. through 7:00 P.M.. Following completion of the pilot program, a report would be presented to City Council with data and information collected about the cruising and whether it had any negative effects on the community.

The City Council could then decide whether to continue with the prohibition on cruising, extend the pilot program, or fully repeal the prohibition on cruising as presented in the proposed Page | 5
Ordinance. The Pilot Program is still in the planning stage and the development and parameters was to be discussed at future subcommittee meetings with key stakeholders.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3).)
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The City Council’s adoption of the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the City Council’s goal of providing an Effective and Culturally Responsive Government (City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025).

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The City’s Administration Department, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, Library and Community Services Department, and Police Department coordinated on this Report and the proposed Ordinance.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The proposed Ordinance amendment is not anticipated to have direct impact on the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2169 (N.C.S.)
City Council Meeting Minutes, Jun 9, 1992
Community Meeting Power Point Presentation, April 25, 2023 Assembly Bill 436
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 176
Page | 6
ORDINANCE NO. ___________ (N.C.S.)

AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE PROHIBITION ON CRUISING CODIFIED AT ARTICLE XIV OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE City Attorney Impartial Analysis
This Ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 2169 (N.C.S.) (codified at Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code) which imposed a prohibition on the activity of cruising where signs have been posted to inform the public of such prohibition. This Ordinance would repeal that prohibition thereby allowing the activity of cruising to occur within the city limits.

WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2169 (N.C.S.) which imposed a prohibition and criminal sanctions on the activity of cruising on any portion of public streets or highways where signs prohibiting such activity have been posted; and WHEREAS, as noted in the meeting minutes from the City Council’s June 16, 1992, meeting, the prohibition on cruising was put into place to combat traffic congestion; minor criminal offenses including alcohol offenses, littering, and noise complaints; major criminal activity such as weapons offenses and physical violence; and
WHEREAS, California Assembly member David Alvarez, joined by other Assembly members, has introduced Assembly Bill 436 which, if approved and chaptered, would (1) repeal subsection (k) of Section 21100 of the California Vehicle Code, thereby restricting local jurisdictions’ authority to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution that prohibit cruising; and
(2) repeal California Vehicle Code Section 24008, thereby removing the State’s prohibition on the operation of passenger vehicles which have been modified from the original design to allow for low clearance driving (low riding); and WHEREAS, Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 176—a measure “celebrat[ing] the history and culture of cruising and encourage[ing] local officials and law enforcement to work with local car clubs to conduct safe cruising events”—was approved by both the Assembly and the Senate and was chaptered by the California Secretary of State on August 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City hosted a community meeting to provide an opportunity for interested members of the community to express their opinions related to the current prohibition on cruising in Salinas; and
WHEREAS, approximately two hundred individuals attended the community meeting, with the large majority of those individuals supporting a repeal of the City’s prohibition on cruising; and WHEREAS, other California cities have repealed their prohibitions on cruising including San Jose, Sacramento, and National City.

Page | 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALINAS as follows:

SECTION 1. Article XIV of Chapter 20 of the Salinas Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the general rule which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Publication. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) calendar days from the passage thereof, the ordinance or a summary thereof shall be posted or published as may be required by law, and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) calendar days after the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on __________________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Page | 8
_________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

The motion was seconded by Councilmember
unanimously with Councilmember caballero
abstaining.
salinas and carried
and councilmember Ish
Councilmember Meurer thanked the city Staff to incl-ude Afan Stunpf, Paul ogden, Larry Bussard and David llora for their support in the 1oo Block Project. She said it was good to see the private sector and public staff working together to accornplish a common goal. She stated that Steve coldfarbls work had been excel,lent and that she appreciated his dedication to the project,
Mayor Styles congratulated city Staff for their comrnitrnent to the project and he echoed Councilmernber Meurerts statement that Steve coldfarb had done outstanding work on the project. He also thanked Brian Finegan for his work with the project and he assured the development team of the steinbeck Partners that the city council" was supporting the commitnent to seeing the 100 Block Project acconplished.

THE sAI,,INAA REDEVEI,OPI.TENT AGENCY A}ID TITE CITY COUNCIIJ RECESAED FOR FIVE }IINUTEA IflIILE UIYOR/ CIIAIR}IAII STYI,ES AND AGENCY SECRETARY DOUGIITY 8IGIIED TIIE DDA FOR TIIE 1OO BLOCK PROJECT.

CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M.

CONSIDERATIONS

1. Anti-Cruisins ordinance for the Citv of Safinas.
(06 10 0030/ 04 40 0020)
Henry Yoneyama presented his report to the city council, a copy of which is on file in the City clerkrs Office. He voj,ced that over the years, the cruising that takes place on Friday and Saturday nights on South Main Street, has been characterized as a tradition, a recreation or a harmless pastirne, with deep seeded roots in the conrnunity. He said that there had been an active cruise on Sunday night, srhich congested E. Alisa1 Street, between Madeira Avenue and Sanborn Road, He added that this cruise becane unpopular due to numerous acts of violence which cuLminated in a nurder.

Mr. Yoneyama stated that in 1988 an ad hoc committee was formed to study cruising and in March 1989, the committee presented its f ina1 report. He said that the report contained 17 recomnendations for pofice action and included increased enforcement efforts and the enactnent of a cruising ordinance. He voiced that over the last fev/ years, the criminal activity in both cruising areas escafated from rninor disturbances, traffic violations, alcohol offenses, Iittering and noise conplaints. He reiterated that the E. Alisal cruise no longer occurs, however, the pattern of violence and !/eapon offenses continues on south llain street.
l.,lr. Yoneyama stated that due to the violence and problems which have resulted frorn cruising, the owners of the Main street center -2 5-
6/e/e2
and the Payless Plaza Shopping centers, Kirkorian Development, have requested the Police Department take actj-on to recommend a cruising ordinance. He added that these concerned groups have pointed out that the issues pertaining to cruising have already been discussed before the Traffic Commission and Staff !,/as requested to bring the matter directly to the City Council. He said that in an effort to ascertain public opinion on a cruising ordinanc, Kirkorian Development conducted an inforrnal petition drive. He voiced that this effort resulted in obtaining 767 signatures in support of enacting a cruj-sing ordinance. He stated that the issue before the City council- vras whether a cruising ordinance be enacted. He further stated such an Ordinance would allow the Police Department to take a positive step towards curbing or elirninating cruising within the city lirnits.
council-member Armenta asked Mr. Yoneyama if he knew who served on the Ad Hoc Committee and asked if there were any members on the committee who did participate in cruising activities in the city of Salinas,
Mr. Yoneyama stated that he did not have a list of the committee nember nanes at this tine although he understood that members $rere a combination of conmunity leaders and Salinas youth.

Councilmember Meurer voiced that she did not recollect the names either however, the connittee was appointed by the Mayor.

Jack Booth, 911 B. Bl,anco Circle, representinq the o\^/ners of Payless Plaza, Nob Hill center, and Lucky Shopping center, stated that in the last fehr years there has been an increasing problem with the cruise taking place on South Main Street. He said that there has been a series of vandalism, graffiti on buildings and a general crowding of parking lots $/ith those who sit in their vehicles. He voiced that he had met with City staff to include the Potice Departnent to discuss nethods in which to alleviate the situation. He said that the stores have hired off duty policemen as private guards, who have been paid by the centers to patrol on Friday and Saturday evenings, as temporary neasures' He stated that the only effective measure has been the poJ.ice patrol that took place" He said that the shopping centers have been subsidizing the off duty patrolman for approximately $1100 per month for the patrol service. He added that he felt that it was not proper to charge double to the rnerchants for police protec-tion.
lr1r. Booth stated that he placed peti,tions in the concerned stores to determine the opinion of the customers regarding the cruise activity. He voiced that the business in these stores has dropped over the past few years due to the cruise. He said that he sat in front of the Lucky Store last Saturday and obtained an additional 2oo siqnatures of customers who signed the petition against the cruise activity. He said that these 2oo signatures were in addition to the petition of 7oo signatures that were included in the -26-
6/e/s2
Council report. Ile voiced that many of the attitudes of Salinas Citizens was that they hrere afraid to leave their own homes or that they would visit other cities for their weekend entertainrnent.

He stated that this proposed ordinance r,/as not an anti-kid ordinance but an ordinance that !,rould address the crime problen that has been causing loss in revenue and costing the City additionat funds for additionaf police protection. He added that he had letters from the surrounding merchants on South Main Street that are on the file in the city clerkrs office.

Vince Cardinalli, 39 Peach Street, asked that officer yoneyana clarify that the same problen existed on E. A1isa1 Street and lranted to know if this problem sti11 existed.

Mr. Yoneyana stated that this cruise that took place on E, Afisal Street has stopped due to the increased violence level. He said that a homicide occured nid summer in t991. He added that it was believed that cruisers stopped participating in this cruj.se activity due to the fear of injury.

Ur. Cardinalli voiced that he had a concern as a parent in regards to what would be considered trcruising[ if he went 1ooking for his child and happened to pass by the check point several tirnes. He asked hohr this type of situation would be handled and what s/ouId constitute a concerned parent not cruising, but trying to find the location of his/her child. He said that according to the language of the proposed ordinance such a situation rnight be considered cruising.

Mr. Yoneyama explained that the procedure for the ordinance would be as follows; an checkpoint would be established and if a person was noted for passinq by several tines within a specific amount of tj,me, he would receive a written notice that would warn him of a possible viofation of the City Code; after the warning was issued, the person would be subject to a citation.

Vince Cardinalli stated that the language shoul,d be cfear leaving no room for misj,nterpretation. He said that enforcing the new ordinance might stop the cruising but the question rernains on where the kids will- go for recreation. He voiced that if the City Council did enact an ordinance, then al,ternatives for the kids should be addressed. He pointed out that the city Council- has provided the Breadbox Recreation Center for the youth in the East Salinas area and asked that council provide some facility for the other parts of Salinas.

Stephanie Atigh clarified that the penalty for violating the proposed Anti-Cruising Ordinance would be an infraction and in infractions, arrest does not take place, but the issuance of citation does occur. She said that the only way that an arrest would take place would be if someone refused to sign the citation.

She voiced that the concept of the proposed ordinance was not unique or original, but was provided by state Vehicle Code to any -27 -
6/e/e2
city who wishes to adopt an
ated that this ordinance hras
that the City Council would
they adopt it.
anti cruising ordinance. she reiternot original and she did not beLieve be opening itself to liability should
his
Dan Abbott, General Manaqer of Foster Freezet south Main, stated that he participated in the Ad Hoc Conmittee in 1989. He said that he worked with Jeff Johnson, Andrev, Bender and other members of the committee whose initial response from cruisers was that they had little interests with establishing alternatives in the cruising activity. He voiced that nany of the cruisers on South Main Street were participants from out of to$/n. He said that in banning cruising the need for an alternative for the youth would remain in Salinas. He stated that there was a difference between loitering and cruising and that loitering should be included in the anti-cruising ordinance language.

Jim Hendricks, owner of Bay Video and Stereo & Mailboxes, Etc. and speaking as chairman of the Board of the Steinbeck Federal Credit Union, voiced that there lrras concern for the safety of custoners and his stores.

Matthew Brish, 915 Baustista Drive, said that the najority of cruisers were not crininals and that he grew up in an area where an ordinace existed that stated that no nore than t$ro peopl-e rrrere allowed to walk dohln the streets after dark. He stated that the Police force was tripled due to the enforcernent of this ordinance in that area. He voiced that he did not feel that fingers should be pointed at cruisers for the cause of crimes in any particular area .

Andrew Bender, North Salinas Resident, stated that he served on the Ad Hoc conmittee in 1989 and that the conmittee deligently worked to reach a fair alternate to cruisers. He said that the committee becarne inactive due to changes that lrere occuring in the Council elections changing fron At Large to District and the Citizens Advisor position was elininated from City staff. He voiced that the comrnittee was divided into subconmittees and he was able to concentrate on the economic aspect of the issue. He stated that he contacted surrounding cities who had an active cruising ordinance and they stated that businesses recovered after the enforcement of such an ordinance. He said that the Ad Hoc Cornmittee made a presentatj,on to the Traffic Commj.ssion and the Recreation Park Comrnission, whj-ch resulted in the formation of the bicycle cornmittee as an aLternate recreation. He stated that the econornic and resj-dential concerns outweigh the rights of the cruisers and their recreation.

Councilmember Ish asked Mr. Yoneyama if the PoI j.ce Departnent had determined the percentage of cruisers from out of town. He added that he understood that about 50? of the cruisers were from surrounding cities.
-28-
6/e/e2
Mr. Yoneyana stated that the Police Department believed that a vast rnajority of cruisers v/ere from other cities al-though a survey was not conducted.

Councilmember lsh voiced that he would support the proposed ordinance because cruj,sing has affected the city economically and for this reason he would introduce the ordinance.

Council-mernber Meurer stated that she would support the adoption of the ordinance \^/hen it returned to council on June L6t ]-992.

Councilmernber Collins echoed Councilmember Meurer and councilmember fshrs sentiments and said that he would support the adoption of the ordinance on June L6, L992.

Councilmember Caballero voiced that she agreed r+ith Councilmember Meurer and added that the ordinance would not stop the criminal activity, but was an issue of whether certain areas of the city was being isolated because of the cruising activity. She expressed her own frustration when she would forget that it was Friday or Saturday night and turned do$rn South Main Street and became a part of the cruising traffic. She said that she v/ould support the proposed anti-cruising ordinance.

Councilmember Salinas stated that he used to come from Watsonville in the 1970's to join the cruising activity however, the present cruising results in viofence with weapons. He said that he would support the adoption of this ordinance on June ]-6, L992.

Councifmember Armenta voiced that he was a forner cruiser on South Main Street himself. He stated that his concern v,ras the age group involved in the former ad hoc cornnittee and said that if the age group consisted of 3 youth and 12 adufts, this would present an unfair age group balance. He said that out of the recorded 26 violations, bet$reen February 1991 through April 1992, 20 of these violations were involving weapons. He voiced that he would support the ordinance for adoption on June L6, !992.

Mayor styles stated that in Iooking at the severity of the crimes on Friday and Saturday nights he wouLd support the ordinance. He said that alternative recreation should be looked at for the Salinas Youth.

Councilmember Salinas suggested that the
alternatives to the cruising activity in
Youth com[ission discuss
SaIinas.

COUNCII,!.{E!,TBER REPORTS
Councilrnernber fsh requested that on the Agenda for June L6, L992 that an itern be included regarding the discussion of the rate increase at the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.

Councilmernber Collins voiced that Councilmenber Armenta nade a 6/ele2
-29 -

Car Club Subcommittee
2 Salinas Fire
Department
City Council
Salinas Police
Department
Library and
Community Services
• Appointed on January 10, 2023
• At the direction of Council, the car club subcommittee was established • Intent: To review the ordinance and provide options regarding cruising Administration
Ordinance
History
• Ordinance No. 2169 adopted on June 16, 1992
• Ordinance was brought into effect due to
traffic congestion, alcohol offenses, littering
and noise complaints
3 • Section 20-172. Cruising Prohibited
• No person shall engage in the activity of cruising on any portion of public streets or highways identified at the beginning and end of the portion of the street or highway subject to cruising controls by "No Cruising" signs which shall reference Vehicle Code Section 21100(k) and this section of the Code. Each successive drive past the traffic-control point by a particular driver after written notice is given to that driver shall constitute a separate violation of this section and no additional notice to that driver shall be required prior to issuance of subsequent citations.
4 Ordinance No. 2169
Cruising vs. Sideshows
• Cruising
• Repetitive driving
• Conducted on public street
• Sideshows
• reckless driving
• speed contest
• burnouts
• large congregations on private property
5 What are other Cities doing?
• City of San Jose
• Repealed Regulation of Cruising on
June 28, 2022
• City of Sacramento
• Repealed Cruising Ordinance on May
31, 2022
• National City
• Repealed Ban on Cruising on April 4,
2023
6 Assembly Bill 436 (2023-24)
• This bill would remove the authorization for a local authority to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or regulation regarding cruising.
• Existing law makes it unlawful to operate a passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, that has been modified from its original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. This bill would repeal that prohibition.
7 Pilot Cruising
Program
• First Cruise in August
• Cruising from E. Bernal/N.Main to
E.Curtis/N.Main
• Evening cruise from 5 – 7pm
• Staging at Sherwood Hall
8 Current list of car
club contacts:
• Streetlife Car Club
• Tavares Car Club
• Crusaders Car Club
• Castroville Midnighters
• Watsonville Riders
• Socios
9 Next Steps…
10 Compile Data Results
Meeting to include car
club representatives
following community
meeting to discuss results
Inform community of the
results
Establish a planning team
to begin the pilot
program development
process
We want
to hear
from you!
Please complete the survey.
11 california legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 436
Introduced by Assembly Members Alvarez and Luz Rivas Alvarez, Ramos, and Luz Rivas
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alanis, Berman, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Davies, Friedman, Garcia, Lowenthal, McCarty, Stephanie Nguyen, Rodriguez, Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Kalra, and Pacheco)
February 6, 2023
An act to amend Section 21100 of, and to repeal Section 24008 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 436, as introduced, Alvarez. Vehicles.

Existing law prohibits a local authority from enacting or enforcing an ordinance on matters covered by the Vehicle Code unless expressly authorized by the Vehicle Code. Existing law authorizes local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding specified matters, including, among others, crossing guards, the operation of bicycles, the removal of illegally parked vehicles, and cruising, as defined.

This bill would remove the authorization for a local authority to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or regulation regarding cruising.

Existing law makes it unlawful to operate a passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, that has been modified from its original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.

Revised 4-19-23—See last page. 99
This bill would repeal that prohibition.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code is amended line 2 to read:
line 3 21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by line 4 ordinance or resolution regarding all of the following matters:
line 5 (a)  Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages a line 6 procession or assemblage on the highways.
line 7 (b)  Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire line 8 and drivers of passenger vehicles for hire.
line 9 (c)  Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers. line 10 (d)  Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices line 11 meeting the requirements of Section 21400.
line 12 (e)  (1)  Regulating traffic by means of a person given temporary line 13 or permanent appointment for that duty by the local authority when line 14 official traffic control devices are disabled or otherwise inoperable, line 15 at the scenes of accidents or disasters, scene of an accident or line 16 disaster, or at locations as a location that may require traffic line 17 direction for orderly traffic flow.
line 18 (2)  A person shall not be appointed pursuant to this subdivision line 19 unless and until the local authority has submitted to the line 20 commissioner or to the chief law enforcement officer exercising line 21 jurisdiction in the enforcement of traffic laws within the area in line 22 which the person is to perform the duty, for review, a proposed line 23 program of instruction for the training of a person for that duty, line 24 duty and unless and until the commissioner or other chief law line 25 enforcement officer approves the proposed program. The line 26 commissioner or other chief law enforcement officer shall approve line 27 a proposed program if he or she they reasonably determines line 28 determine that the program will provide sufficient training for line 29 persons assigned to perform the duty described in this subdivision. line 30 (f)  Regulating traffic at the site of road or street construction or line 31 maintenance by persons a person authorized for that duty by the line 32 local authority.
line 33 (g)  (1)  Licensing and regulating the operation of tow truck line 34 service or tow truck drivers whose principal place of business or 99 AB 436 — 2 —
line 1 employment is within the jurisdiction of the local authority, line 2 excepting the operation and operators of any auto dismantlers’ tow line 3 vehicle licensed under Section 11505 or any tow truck operated line 4 by a repossessing agency licensed under Chapter 11 (commencing line 5 with Section 7500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions line 6 Code and its registered employees.
line 7 (2)  The Legislature finds that the safety and welfare of the line 8 general public is promoted by permitting local authorities to line 9 regulate tow truck service companies and operators by requiring line 10 licensure, insurance, and proper training in the safe operation of line 11 towing equipment, thereby ensuring against towing mistakes that line 12 may lead to violent confrontation, stranding motorists in dangerous line 13 situations, impeding the expedited vehicle recovery, and wasting line 14 state and local law enforcement’s limited resources. line 15 (3)  This subdivision does not limit the authority of a city or city line 16 and county pursuant to Section 12111.
line 17 (h)  Operation of bicycles, bicycles and, as specified in Section line 18 21114.5, electric carts by physically disabled persons, or persons line 19 50 years of age or older, on public sidewalks.
line 20 (i)  Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing line 21 guards for the protection of persons who are crossing a street or line 22 highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter line 23 to a place of safety.
line 24 (j)  Regulating the methods of deposit of garbage and refuse in line 25 streets and highways for collection by the local authority or by line 26 any person authorized by the local authority.
line 27 (k)  (1)  Regulating cruising.
line 28 (2)  The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this line 29 subdivision shall regulate cruising, which is the repetitive driving line 30 of a motor vehicle past a traffic control point in traffic that is line 31 congested at or near the traffic control point, as determined by the line 32 ranking peace officer on duty within the affected area, within a line 33 specified time period and after the vehicle operator has been given line 34 an adequate written notice that further driving past the control line 35 point will be a violation of the ordinance or resolution. line 36 (3)  A person is not in violation of an ordinance or resolution line 37 adopted pursuant to this subdivision unless both of the following line 38 apply:
99 — 3 — AB 436
line 1 (A)  That person has been given the written notice on a previous line 2 driving trip past the control point and then again passes the control line 3 point in that same time interval.
line 4 (B)  The beginning and end of the portion of the street subject line 5 to cruising controls are clearly identified by signs that briefly and line 6 clearly state the appropriate provisions of this subdivision and the line 7 local ordinance or resolution on cruising.
line 8 (l)
line 9 (k)  Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of line 10 vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane, as described in Section line 11 22500.1, on private property. A removal pursuant to this line 12 subdivision shall be consistent, to the extent possible, with the line 13 procedures for removal and storage set forth in Chapter 10 line 14 (commencing with Section 22650).
line 15 (m)
line 16 (l)  Regulating mobile billboard advertising displays, as defined line 17 in Section 395.5, including the establishment of penalties, which line 18 may include, but are not limited to, removal of the mobile billboard line 19 advertising display, civil penalties, and misdemeanor criminal line 20 penalties, penalties for a violation of the ordinance or resolution. line 21 The ordinance or resolution may establish a minimum distance line 22 that a mobile billboard advertising display shall be moved after a line 23 specified time period.
line 24 (n)
line 25 (m)  Licensing and regulating the operation of pedicabs for hire, line 26 as defined in Section 467.5, and operators of pedicabs for hire, line 27 including requiring one or more of the following documents:
line 28 (1)  A valid California driver’s license.
line 29 (2)  Proof of successful completion of a bicycle safety training line 30 course certified by the League of American Bicyclists or an line 31 equivalent organization as determined by the local authority. line 32 (3)  A valid California identification card and proof of successful line 33 completion of the written portion of the California driver’s license line 34 examination administered by the department. The department shall line 35 administer, without charging a fee, the original driver’s license line 36 written examination on traffic laws and signs to a person who line 37 states that he or she is, or intends they are, or intend to become, a line 38 pedicab operator, operator and who holds a valid California line 39 identification card or has successfully completed an application line 40 for a California identification card. If the person achieves a passing 99 AB 436 — 4 —
line 1 score on the examination, the department shall issue a certificate line 2 of successful completion of the examination, examination bearing line 3 the person’s name and identification card number. The certificate line 4 shall not serve in lieu of successful completion of the required line 5 examination administered as part of any subsequent application line 6 for a driver’s license. The department is not required to enter the line 7 results of the examination into the computerized record of the line 8 person’s identification card or otherwise retain a record of the line 9 examination or results.
line 10 (o)
line 11 (n)  (1)  This section does not authorize a local authority to enact line 12 or enforce an ordinance or resolution that establishes a violation line 13 if a violation for the same or similar conduct is provided in this line 14 code, nor does it authorize a local authority to enact or enforce an line 15 ordinance or resolution that assesses a fine, penalty, assessment, line 16 or fee for a violation if a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a line 17 violation involving the same or similar conduct is provided in this line 18 code.
line 19 (2)  This section does not preclude a local authority from enacting line 20 parking ordinances pursuant to existing authority in Chapter 9 line 21 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11. line 22 (p)
line 23 (o)  (1)  Regulating advertising signs on motor vehicles parked line 24 or left standing upon a public street. The ordinance or resolution line 25 may establish a minimum distance that the advertising sign shall line 26 be moved after a specified time period.
line 27 (2)  Paragraph (1) does not apply to any of the following:
line 28 (A)  Advertising signs that are permanently affixed to the body line 29 of, an integral part of, or a fixture of a motor vehicle for permanent line 30 decoration, identification, or display and that do not extend beyond line 31 the overall length, width, or height of the vehicle. line 32 (B)  If the license plate frame is installed in compliance with line 33 Section 5201, paper advertisements issued by a dealer contained line 34 within that license plate frame or any advertisements on that license line 35 plate frame.
line 36 (3)  As used in paragraph (2), “permanently affixed” means any line 37 of the following:
line 38 (A)  Painted directly on the body of a motor vehicle. line 39 (B)  Applied as a decal on the body of a motor vehicle. 99 — 5 — AB 436
line 1 (C)  Placed in a location on the body of a motor vehicle that was line 2 specifically designed by a vehicle manufacturer manufacturer, as line 3 defined in Section 672 672, and licensed pursuant to Section 11701, line 4 in compliance with both state and federal law or guidelines, for line 5 the express purpose of containing an advertising sign. line 6 SEC. 2. Section 24008 of the Vehicle Code is repealed. line 7 24008. It is unlawful to operate any passenger vehicle, or line 8 commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, which has been modified line 9 from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other line 10 than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level line 11 roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost line 12 portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. line 13
line 14
REVISIONS: line 15
Heading—Line 5. line 16
line 17
O
99 AB 436 — 6 —
,r @IF]II"']II} AUTHTNIICATED
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No, 176
RESOLUTION CHAPTER 16I
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. l T6 Relative to cruising. [Filcd wilh Secretary of State August 30. 2022.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSELIS DIGEST
ACR 176, Luz Rivas. Cruising.

This measure would celebrate the history and culture of cruising and encourage local officials and law enforcement to work with local car clubs to conduct safe cruising events.

WHEREAS, Cruising is the custom of leisurely driving on urban boulevards in dropped and dolled-up vehicles, that includes meetups of lowrider, vintage, and custom vehicle owners; and
WHEREAS, Cruising is all about fun, the love ofcars, the love ofculture, and the craft of maintaining a vintage vehicle; and
WHEREAS, Cruising can occur as gatherings where cars are parked and owners show offtheir cars and admire other cals, or as one-offcruises where people gather and drive their cars through the streets; and WHEREAS, Cruising in some form has been popular in Califomia since the first American teenagers obtained vehicles in the 1930s; and WHEREAS, Cruising along a specific route became popular after World War Il with individuals of Mexican heritage driving lowriders in southem Califomia towns, and cruising rapidly became a popular activity among teenagers; and
WHEREAS, Lowriders are customized cars whose springs have been shortened so that the chassis rides close to the ground and which are often equipped with hydraulic lifts that are controlled by the driver; and WHEREAS, The West Coast style vintage lowrider car is embedded throughout popular culture and is fiequently featured in films, music videos, video games, museums, marketing, and the digital NFT art world; and WHEREAS, The fountainhead of lowrider culture is Whittier Boulevard in East Los Angeles; and
WHEREAS, Van Nuys Boulevard and the San Fernando Valley are popular hubs of lowrider culture and cruising in Califomia; and WHEREAS, The San Femando Valley Car and Truck Club Council is a highly respected body of car and truck clubs in the San Femando Valley; and
WHEREAS, The San Francisco Loxrider Council is an advocacy organization and recently maf,ked its 40th year in operation; and WHEREAS, Sacramento car clubs are dedicated to preserving the art, hobby. and culture; and
96 Res. Ch. 16l
WHEREAS. The Sacramento Lowrider Commission was instrumenlal in the repeal ofa 34-year-old city ordinance that prohibited cruising; and WHEREAS. Whittier Boulevard, Van Nuys Boulevard, Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Hollywood Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, Colorado Boulevard, and McHenry Avenue are among the most famous cruising strips in Califomia: and
WHEREAS, Lotrider communities are also thriving in the Cities of Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland; and
WHEREAS, Mission Street in San Francisco, Broadway Boulevard in Sacramento, Lake Menitt in Oakland, and Story and Kings Road in San Jose are famous cruising strips in northern Califomia; and WHEREAS, Cruising has resurged in the last l0 years and cruises and lowrider meetups occur every weekend throughout southem Califomia, fiom Oxnard to Riverside to San Diego to Lancasterl and WHEREAS, Car club gatherings have been drawing new types ofvehicles driven by younger motorists influenced by the "Fast and the Furious" media fianchise: and
WHEREAS, While cruising is most popular among Latinos, cruising is becoming increasingly popular among many other groups including Armenians, African Americans, and Persians; and
WHEREAS, Car clubs are often engaged with th€ir communities and collaborate with local law enforcement and elected officials to conduct toy drives, fundraisers. and other philanthropic activities; and WHEREAS, Car clubs have participated in COVID-19 vaccine drives, raised money for local causes, raised awareness about the census count, engaged in activism, and advocated for the community; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly ofthe State of California, the Senqte lhereof concurr ing, Thal lhe Legislatue celebmtes the history and culture ofcruising and encourages local officials and law enforcement to work with local car clubs to conduct safe cruising events; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly hansmit copies ofthis resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
96 -2-
o
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-283, Version: 1
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan and Citizen Participation Plan Amendments
Approve a Resolution approving the City of Salinas’ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and its submittal to HUD; approving amendments to the City of Salinas’ Citizen Participation Plan (CPP); and authorizing the Mayor to execute any related agreements, contracts, certifications, or amendments related to the funding allocations set forth in the FY 2023-2024 AAP.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/10/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: FRANCISCO BRAMBILA, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
TITLE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT FY 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution:

1. approving the City of Salinas’ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and its submittal to HUD; and

2. approving amendments to the City of Salinas’ Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) and its submittal to HUD; and

3. authorizing the City Manager to incorporate any necessary minor modifications based upon community feedback prior to submissions to HUD; and

4. authorizing the Mayor, or designee, for and on behalf of the City, to execute any related agreements, contracts, certifications, or amendments related to the funding allocations set forth in the FY 2023-2024 AAP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas (City) currently administers three (3) federal HUD entitlement programs; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), which have assisted and improved numerous low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods throughout the jurisdiction.

To remain eligible for annual allocations of entitlement funds, the City must prepare and submit a FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan in support of its five-year FY 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The HUD submission deadline for the City’s FY 2023-2024 AAP is August 16, 2023.

The City is also proposing an amendment to update its policies and procedures under the CPP to better facilitate necessary actions and encourage participation and engagement with Salinas residents. The update includes new language regarding Public Hearing Notices and Outreach related to HUD’s required engagement and noticing of various programs and plans.

Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas is currently operating under its HUD approved FY 2020-2024 Con Plan which covers the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025. This plan was approved by the City Council on August 4, 2020, and provides a strategic, overarching 5-year plan for addressing identified needs and established priorities pertaining to HUD CDBG, HOME and ESG entitlement funding. The FY 2023-2024 AAP represents the City’s fourth year of proposed projects, activities, programs, and funding amounts to be implemented in alignment with the City’s HUD FY 2020- 2024 Con Plan.

FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP)
In accordance with the City’s CPP, and to assist in the development of the AAP, the City relied on the robust public participation and consultation for the creation of the Alisal Vibrancy Plan (2019), Chinatown Revitalization Plan and the Parks (2019), Rec & Libraries Master Plan (2019) to selfdirect its CDBG and ESG funds. In order to maintain responsiveness to the ever-changing development environment within its jurisdiction, the City’s HOME funding application remains open for “shovel ready” affordable housing projects. The City continues to regularly engage with developers to evaluate projects, timelines, and potential amounts of funding, but has yet to receive an application for its FY 23-24 funding and is opting to allocate the bulk of its FY 23-24 HOME funding towards the priority revitalization of a historic structure for mixed use in the Chinatown neighborhood.

In preparation of Council’s consideration of this item, this year’s thirty (30) day AAP public comment period initiated with the required publication and posting of the AAP on April 15, 2023 and will conclude on May 16, 2023. Final funding recommendations were presented to the City’s Housing and Land Use Committee on May 9, 2023 and received unanimous support to move the item forward to the City Council for a final public hearing and consideration of approval . Barring the receipt of any significant comments that might require minor modifications, the approved AAP will be submitted to HUD prior to the August 16, 2023, deadline. In the event that significant changes are required as a result of received public input, the City would then take appropriate action to amend its AAP.

The FY 2023-2024 AAP includes funding recommendations for each of the City’s HUD entitlement allocations as well as any accrued Program Income (PI). Annual funding available this year includes $2,015,627 (CDBG); $60,000 (CDBG PI); $812,241 FY 23-24 allocation (HOME FY 23-24); $1,848,593 (HOME prior FY’s); $313,000 (HOME PI) and $182,225 (ESG). The following tables summarize proposed funding recommendations for FY 2023-2024 AAP CDBG, HOME and ESG projects and activities.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Recommendations FY 2023-2024
Agency Activity Staff
Recommendation
City of Salinas Program Administration (20%) $415,125
City of Salinas Activity Delivery Sherwood Recreation
Center – Phase 4 $50,000
Page | 3
City of Salinas Activity Delivery Republic Café at 37
Soledad St. $50,000
City of Salinas Sherwood Recreation Center – Phase 4 $500,000 City of Salinas Republic Café Museum at 37 Soledad St. $500,000 City of Salinas Hebbron Family Center $250,662
Eden Council for Hope
and Opportunity Fair Housing and Tenant/Landlord Services $75,000 City of Salinas Housing Referrals and Tenant/Landlord
Services $34,840
City of Salinas Salinas Outreach and Response Team $200,000 Total $2,075,627
HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding Recommendations FY 2023-2024
Agency Activity Staff
Recommendation
City of Salinas Program Administration (10%) $112,524
City of Salinas Republic Café Housing
(Including Activity Delivery) $2,482,022
Future Agency to be
Determined Future CHDO Activity to be Determined $379,288 Total $2,973,834
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Funding Recommendations FY 2023-2024
Agency Activity Staff
Recommendation
City of Salinas Program Administration (7.5%) $13,667
City of Salinas Salinas Outreach and Response
Team $100,000
Community Homeless Solutions Rapid Re-housing Program $68,558 Total $182,225
Page | 4
Citizen Participation Plan (CPP)
The City’s CPP sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage the participation of City residents in the development of the City’s HUD Con Plan, AAP, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA), Section 108 application, and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The CPP also applies to any Amendments to the Con Plan, AAP, and CAPER, which evaluates progress toward Con Plan objectives. Proposed amendments to the CPP include minor changes to incorporate fair housing language as well as updates to Public Hearing Notices and Outreach.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15378.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This agenda item supports each of the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies including Economic Development, Housing/Affordable Housing, Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Public Safety, Youth and Seniors, and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The FY 23-24 AAP and CPP are administered by the City’s Community Development Department Housing and Community Development Division in primary coordination with the City Attorney, Public Works, Library and Community Services, and Finance departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

It is estimated that the City is eligible to receive a total of $10,000,000 (CDBG), $4,000,000 (HOME) and $900,000 (ESG) of HUD funding allocations during the FY 2020-2024 Con Plan period. Council approval of the FY 2023-2024 AAP would make the City eligible to receive $3,070,093 in HUD FY 2023-2024 CDBG, HOME, and ESG Entitlement funding. No General Fund impact is associated with this agenda item.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution FY 2023-2024 AAP and CPP Amendment
FY 2023-2024 Funding Recommendation Tables - Draft
FY 2023-2024 HUD Annual Action Plan – Draft
Citizen Participation Plan Amendments – Draft
Public Comments

RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FY 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (AAP), AMENDMENT TO

THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL TO HUD WHEREAS, the City of Salinas (City) receives and administers United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program funding; and
WHEREAS, the City is currently operating under its approved HUD Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) covering the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025 which sets forth a five-year strategic plan for addressing identified needs within the context of HUD entitlement CDBG, HOME and ESG funding; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2023-2024 AAP describes proposed activities, projects, programs and funding amounts to be implemented with HUD CDBG, HOME and ESG funds; and WHEREAS, the City relied on the robust public participation and consultation for the creation of the existing Alisal Vibrancy Plan, Chinatown Revitalization Plan and the Parks, Rec & Libraries Master Plan to self-direct HUD’s CDBG and ESG funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has a continuous open application for HOME related projects, while the City has a number of city-led affordable housing projects, it has not received any applications from affordable housing developers; and
WHEREAS, the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage resident participation in the development of the City’s Con Plan, AAP, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA), Section 108 application and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and any Amendments to the Con Plan, AAP and CAPER, which evaluates progress toward Con Plan objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to amend the CPP to include new language regarding Public Hearing Notices and Outreach as it relates to the CPP; and WHEREAS, per the City’s HUD Citizen Participation Plan (CPP), the draft FY 2023-2024 AAP and CPP is available for public review and comment for a minimum thirty (30) day period from April 15, 2023, to May 16, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Land Use Committee held a meeting on May 9, 2023, to obtain comments on the draft FY 2023-2024 AAP and draft amendment to the CPP and unanimously recommended both documents move forward to the City Council for final consideration; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 16, 2023 to obtain further comments on the draft FY 2022-2023 AAP and draft CPP; and WHEREAS, the City will take appropriate action to either make minor modifications to its FY 2023-2024 AAP and CPP prior to submission to HUD or execute a post-submission substantial amendment should any relative or significant comments be received within the comment period; and WHEREAS, the City must submit a FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) to HUD for approval by August 16, 2023 in order to remain eligible to receive CDBG, HOME and ESG entitlement funding; and
WHEREAS, the City must submit the proposed amendment to the CPP to HUD for final approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Salinas that it hereby approves the FY 2023-2024 AAP and amendment to the CPP and submittals to HUD, authorizes the City Manager to incorporate any necessary minor modifications to the approved AAP prior to submission, and authorizes the Mayor or designee, for and on behalf of the City, to execute any related agreements, contracts, certifications, and related documents implementing the funding allocations set forth in the AAP.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 1
City of Salinas
Citizen Participation Plan
Amended: December 13, 2022May 16, 2023

1. Encouragement of Citizen Participation
Since the City of Salinas (City) began receiving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in 1975, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) in 1992, and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program in 1994, the City has incorporated full opportunities for citizens to participate in planning, development, and review of proposals for funding from these entitlement programs. As required by federal regulations from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), citizens must be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate in an advisory role in planning, implementing and assessing those programs and proposals.

The City recognizes the importance of public participation in both defining and understanding current housing, community development, economic development, and fair housing needs, and prioritizing resources to address those needs. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) is designed to provide residents of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities, and special needs equal access to become involved in the Plan each year. This CPP was written in accordance with 24 CFR, Section 91.105 of HUD’s Consolidated Plan regulations.

This 1 Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage participation by the residents of the City in the development of the City’s Consolidated Plan (Con Plan), Annual Action Plan (AAP), Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA), Section 108, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)/Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).

The CPP also applies to any Substantial Amendments (Amendment) to the Con Plan, AAP and CAPER, which evaluates progress toward the Con Plan objectives. The City submits a Con Plan to HUD every five (5) years and an AAP to HUD annually. These documents are due to HUD 45 days prior to the beginning of a new program year. The CAPER is submitted to HUD and due within 90 days after the close of the program year (June 30). The City typically updates the AI/AFH and NRSA every five years concurrently with the Con Plan. From time to time the City submits Amendments and Section 108 applications to HUD.

Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide input into all aspects of the City’s Con Plan, AAP, Amendment, CAPER, Section 108, NRSA and AI/AFH activities from assessing needs and setting priorities through performance evaluation. This CPP offers numerous opportunities for citizens to contribute information, ideas, and opinions about ways to provide decent housing, establishing and maintaining a suitable living environment, and 1 CPP regulations may be viewed online at: 24 CFR Part 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 2
expanding economic opportunities, particularly for low-and moderate-income persons.

In developing its Con Plan, AAP, Amendment, CAPER, Section 108 application, NRSA, and AI/AFH to HUD, the City will take appropriate actions to encourage the participation of all of its citizens including:
• low-and moderate-income persons, particularly those living in areas where federal funds are proposed to be used;
• residents of predominantly low-and moderate-income neighborhoods; • residents of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP); • minorities;
• people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP);
• people with disabilities;
• residents of public and other assisted housing developments; and • local and regional institutions, the regional Continuum of Care (CoC) coalition (known as “Coalition of Homeless Services Providers”) and other organizations (including businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations, and community-based and faith-based organizations.

The City is committed to keeping all interested groups and individuals informed of activities being proposed or undertaken under HUD entitlement programs. Opportunities to comment on or participate in planning community development and affordable housing activities and projects will be publicized and disseminated as widely as possible in Salinas.

2. Public Hearings
The City will conduct the following public hearings:
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for a Con Plan;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for an AAP;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for a CAPER;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for an NRSA;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for an AI/AFH;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing for a CPP;
• A minimum of one (1) public hearing on an as needed basis for an Amendment; and • A minimum of one (1) public hearing on an as needed basis for Section 108.

The City will obtain the citizens’ views and respond to proposals and questions. The public hearings are usually held by the City Council and at times may include the Housing and Land Use Committee. The public hearings will address:
• housing and community development needs;
• the proposed use of program funds, and
• program performance during the past year.

The public hearings will be held in order to solicit comments on the draft Con Plan, AAP, CAPER, NRSA, AI/AFH, CPP, Amendments, and Section 108 application, which include the proposed use of HUD entitlement funds. The information provided to the public on or before the public City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 3
hearing will include:
• the amount of assistance the local government expects to receive (including grant funds and program income);
• the description of activities that may be undertaken; the estimated amount of funding that will benefit persons of low-and moderate-incomes; and • the City’s plan to minimize displacement of persons and to assist any person displaced, specifying the types and levels of assistance the City will make available (or require others to make available) to persons displaced, even if no displacement is expected to occur.

This information will be presented at the public hearing and is contained in the text of the Con Plan, AAP, CAPER, NRSA, AI/AFH, CPP or Section 108 application under review.

3. Public Hearing Notices and Outreach
Information about the date, time, location, and subject of each public hearing will be provided to citizens at least one week in advance, in English and Spanish (if available), or as required by HUD, by the following methods:
• publication of a notice in at least one two local newspapers (in English in The Californian and in Spanish in El Sol);
• electronic notice emailemail distribution lists;
• posting on the City’s website, http://www.cityofsalinas.org/; • social media outlets
• City’s public facilities
The City also subscribes to the California Relay Service to accommodate TDD (telecommunication devices for the deaf) users; published public notices provide a TDD number. The City also provides notice to Central Coast Center for Independent Living, Deaf & Hard of Hearing Service Center, and Blind and Visually Impaired Center. These local agencies serve groups that may need notice in a different format.

Targeted outreach developed specifically for informing low and moderate-income persons, particularly those residing in the Alisal Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (ANRSA), minorities, residents of public and other affordable housing, and persons with disabilities will take place via distribution of notices to providers of services to these populations, including the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey and non-profit affordable housing developers in Salinas. Outreach to Continuum of Care partners, local businesses, Salinas-based developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations, and other community-based and faith-based organizations, will take place via notices sent to these organizations via email and/or regular mail.

Every effort will be made to ensure that public hearings are inclusive. Hearings will be held at convenient times and locations, preferably in the late afternoon/early evening and in places where people most affected by proposed activities can attend. The City will utilize facilities, which are accessible to persons with mobility impairments. Published notices will include information that:
“Disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested by any person with a disability who requires a City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 4
modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting. Requests should be referred to the City Clerk’s office at 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, (831) 758-7381, as soon as possible but no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the City by dialing 711 for the California Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.” Spanish translation is provided at all public meetings and hearings concerning HUD programs.

4. Publication of the Proposed Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and Annual Action Plan (AAP)
The City will publish the proposed Con Plan and AAP in a manner that affords citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and submit comments. The proposed Con Plan (or “public comment draft”) shall include:
• the amount of assistance the City expects to receive (including grant funds and program income);
• the range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount that will
• benefit persons of low-and moderate-incomes, and
• summary of the proposed Con Plan and/or AAP will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation at the beginning of the required public comment period. The summary will describe the contents and purpose of the plan (including a summary of specific objectives) and include a list of locations where copies of the proposed Con Plan and/or AAP may be obtained or examined.

The following are among the locations where copies of the public comment draft will be made available for inspection:
• John Steinbeck Library, 350 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas;
• Cesar Chavez Library, 615 Williams Road, Salinas;
• El Gabilan Library, 1400 North Main Street, Salinas;
• Community Development Department, Housing & Community Development Division, 65 W.

Alisal Street, Salinas;
• City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas; and • On-line at the City of Salinas website: http://www.cityofsalinas.org/.

Copies of the proposed Con Plan and/or AAP will be located online at the City of Salinas website:
http://www.cityofsalinas.org/. Copies can also be obtained by contacting the Housing Division of the Community Development Department at (831) 758-7334 or [email protected].

5. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Residents
Residents who, as a result of national origin, do not speak English as their primary language and who have limited ability to speak, read, write or understand English may be entitled to language assistance related to the planning, programming and implementation of federal CDBG, HOME and/or ESG funding by the City. In providing such language assistance, the City will be taking affirmative steps in complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the federal law City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 5
which protects individuals from discrimination.

The two primary goals of this policy are to provide specific services to eligible individuals in need of language assistance and to increase participation of residents from all races and national origins comparable to their representation within this community. The threshold for eligibility and access to language services shall be 5% of the population as determined in the most current federal Census. For Salinas, since the 2020 Census identified 79.2% of the resident population as either Hispanic or Latino, special considerations will be directed to this group in the implementation of the CPP. Spanish translation of documents will be made available upon request.

The provision of the language assistance shall be implemented by the Community Development Department.

6. Public Comments on the Proposed Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and/or Annual Action Plan (AAP)
The City will receive comments from citizens on its proposed Con Plan and/or AAP for a period not less than thirty (30) days prior to submission of the Plan(s) to HUD. All comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at public hearings will be considered in preparing the final Plan(s). The comments, or a summary of these comments, therefore, shall be attached to the final Plan(s). Oral comments outside of the public hearing will not be considered, unless they are also provided directly to staff via email, letter, or other legible written form at the address provided in Section 4, above. The final version of the Con Plan and/or AAP as submitted to HUD will be posted on the City’s webpage. Should HUD provide alternate public comment period, the City will default to the allowable timeline.

7. Substantial Amendments and Section 108
HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 91.505 guide Amendments to the Con Plan and/or AAP. City Council will select alternate activities which can be implemented if projects approved by the City Council are rejected by HUD or if approved activities subsequently are determined to be ineligible, illegal, or for other reasons cannot be implemented. In the past, the City has also utilized Section 108 as a tool to further invest federal dollars in the community.

When a substantial change is proposed for a project, City staff will prepare the Amendment. Also, if the City plans on utilizing Section 108 funding, the City will submit an application to HUD for review and approval. Prior to City Council action on an Amendment to the Con Plan and/or AAP or Section 108 application, a notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation, social media outlets, City’s public facilities, housing division distribution list and the City’s website 30 days prior to implementation, unless alternate public comment period provided by HUD.

When an Amendment or Section 108 application or activity is proposed, the City Council will allow public comment before acting on Amendment to an approved Con Plan and/or AAP of Section 108 activity or application. This public comment opportunity will take the place of a formal public hearing. A summary of citizen comments and why the comments were accepted or rejected will be included as part of the Amendment or Section 108 process.

An Amendment is defined as:

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 6
• For larger projects, over $200,000, an increase of 25 percent or more in project funding.

Changes that are less than $50,000 are not considered substantial. • An increase of 25 percent or more in project beneficiaries (i.e. income groups, limited clientele groups, residents of a targeted area) or a change in purpose, scope or location which would change the project beneficiaries by more than 25 percent or • A determination by the Community Development Director, that the change is substantial even though it falls below the standards in Section 1 and 2 above. • For ESG components, as long as the maximum 60% threshold for Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter is not exceeded, funding can be moved within the other components to meet expenditure requirements without a substantial amendment.

HOME funded project selection decisions that meet the approved criteria of an established loan or grant program will not be considered substantial amendments. The City, in consultation with the Housing and Land Use Committee will select alternate housing projects during each funding cycle which can be implemented if an approved project does not achieve milestones set at the time of funding, the project is discontinued or postponed, or for whatever other reason an approved project is unable to perform in a timely manner.

8. Public Notice of and Public Comment on Substantial Amendment or Section 108 Once drafted, the City shall make the Amendment or Section 108 public and submit it to the City Council for its review, comment, and recommendation. Notice and opportunity to comment will be given to citizens through public notices in local newspapers and other appropriate means, such as the targeted distribution lists described above in Section 3. A public comment period of not less than thirty (30) days will be provided prior to implementing any Amendment to the Con Plan and/or AAP of Section 108 activity or application. Comments received, or a summary of comments, therefore shall be attached to the Amendment or Section 108, which will be available to the public and submitted to HUD.

9. Preparation of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Performance reports on programs covered by the Con Plan and/or AAP are to be prepared by the City for annual submission to HUD by September 28th of each year. The City shall provide a preliminary draft of the CAPER and publish a notice announcing that the public shall have no less than fifteen (15) days to review and comment on the document.

The following are among the locations where copies of the public comment draft will be made available for inspection:
• John Steinbeck Library, 350 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas;
• Cesar Chavez Library, 615 Williams Road, Salinas;
• El Gabilan Library, 1400 North Main Street, Salinas;
• Community Development Department, Housing & Community Development Division, 65 W.

Alisal Street, Salinas;
• City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas; and • City of Salinas website: http://www.cityofsalinas.org/.

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 7
All public comments received either orally or in writing regarding the CAPER will be considered and the comments, or a summary of these comments, shall be attached to the final document.

The City shall encourage members of the public to review the performance detailed in the CAPER during the public comment period.

10. Preparation of the Analysis of Impediments (AI)/Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to Fair Housing Choice and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Federal programs such as CDBG, HOME and ESG have regulatory requirements to affirmatively further fair housing based upon HUD’s obligation under Section 808 of the Fair Housing Act. Fair housing planning process helps communities analyze challenges to fair housing choice and establish goals and priorities to address the fair housing barriers in the community. The AI/AFH helps jurisdictions identify and assess four fair housing issues: patterns of integration and segregation; racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; disparities in access to opportunity; and disproportionate housing needs.

The City typically updates it’s NRSA as part of the Con Plan update. The NRSA provides the City with a tool to deliver greater flexibility to utilize federal funds such as CDBG within the targeted NRSA.

Consultation
The City will encourage participation by low-income residents, the Continuum of Care, local and regional institutions, and other organizations in developing and implementing the AI/AFH and NRSA. During the development of the AI/AFH and NRSA, at the minimum, the City will consult the following services/agencies to solicit their input on fair housing issues in the City:
• Fair Housing Organizations;
• Housing Authority of the County of Monterey and its Resident Advisory Board; • Tenant organizations, including resident management corporations, resident councils, assisted housing resident organizations and advocates;
• Advocacy groups and community-based organizations serving special needs households and classes of persons protected under state and federal fair housing laws; • Affordable housing developers and housing service providers; • Banks and other financial institutions, and housing professionals (realtors, property management companies);
• Faith-based organizations;
• Public and private agencies that provide social services, including those focusing on services to low-income populations, children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and homeless persons;
• Adjacent governments and neighboring jurisdictions regarding priority non-housing community development needs and local government agencies with metropolitan-wide planning responsibilities regarding problems and solutions that go beyond a single jurisdiction (e.g. transportation, employment);
• Organizations relevant to the opportunity analysis, for example local school district leadership or parent groups or environmental justice groups; • Philanthropic organizations; and
• States and local universities.

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 8
Public Review of Draft AI and NRSA
The draft AI and NRSA will be made available for public review for 30 days. Written comments will be accepted during the 30-day comment period. A summary of written comments and the City’s responses must be attached to the AI/AFH and NRSA. A 30-day comment review period will be noticed and the draft AI/AFH and NRSA made available at locations detailed in Section 4 of this Plan.

Public Hearings
The City will conduct at least one public hearing to allow citizens to review and submit comments on the draft AI/AFH and ANRSA.

11. Access to Records
All public records, as defined by the State Public Disclosure Act, will be available for review at the City Clerk’s office or at the Community Development Department Housing Division during normal business hours. Requests for records will be handled in accordance with the City of Salinas’ policy on review of public records. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying records for citizens.

12. Technical Assistance
The City shall make available, upon request, technical assistance to groups representing persons of low-and moderate-income (and other special needs) that request such assistance in developing proposals for funding assistance under any of the programs covered by the Plans. The City shall also hold at least one workshop for community agencies applying for City funding on or near the time of issuance of a Request for Proposals to explain issues related to various funding sources available, eligible activities, the application process itself, and to answer any questions applicants may have.

13. Citizen Complaints
The City of Salinas shall accept written complaints and provide a substantive written response to any written citizen complaint within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed fifteen (15) working days, when the complaint concerns the Con Plan, AAP, CAPER, Amendments, NRSA, Section 108 and AI/AFH.

Complaints, comments and questions should be directed to:

Planning Manager, Housing & Community Development Division Community Development Department
City of Salinas
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
(831)758-7334

14. Housing and Land Use Committee
The Mayor annually appoints Council members to the Housing and Land Use Committee (HLUC).

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 9
The HLUC serves in an initial advisory capacity to staff and the City Council in regard to City of Salinas HUD entitlement funding allocations and related plans, reports, amendments and applications.

15. Effective Date and Amendments
This amended CPP will supersede all prior CPPs, and become effective on May 26, 2020May 16, 2023, and will remain in effect as long as Con Plan activities are ongoing or until superseded by a new amended CPP. Citizens will be given notice and an opportunity to comment on any amendments to the CPP. This CPP will be made available to the public at the locations detailed in Section 4 of this Plan. Persons with disabilities that need special accommodations to review this Plan may make a request to CED or NCS, and reasonable accommodations will be made to provide the document in a form that is accessible to the person making the request.

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 10

EXHIBIT A
Citizen Participation Plan Waivers and Alternative Requirements for COVID-19 For CDBG, ESG, and HOME funding and eligible waivers under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the City’s CPP is amended to include the following:

1. 5-day Public Comment Period
a. Expedited procedures to include notice and reasonable opportunity to comment of no less than 5 days. The 5-day period can run concurrently for comments on the action plan amendment and amended citizen participation plan.

2. Definition of Reasonable Noticing
a. A public notice will be issued regarding the date, time, location (if virtual meeting, instructions to view and comment will be provided), and subject (e.g. substantial amendment) of City Council public hearing and will provide citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment of no less than 5 days in advance of the scheduled meeting; b. The public notice will provide citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment of no less than 5 days;
c. The public notice will include instructions on how citizens can submit their comments to the City (e.g. mail, electronically, City Council meeting); d. Public notices in English and Spanish will be issued and posted at the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall (200 Lincoln Avenue), City Permit Center (65 W. Alisal Street – 1 st Floor), City
Community Development Department Housing Division Office (65 W. Alisal St. – 2 nd
Floor), John Steinbeck Library (350 Lincoln Avenue), Cesar Chavez Library (615 Williams Road), El Gabilan Library (1400 North Main Street), City Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)/Request for Proposals (RFP) e-mail distribution list and on the City website at:
(https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/community-development/housing-andcommunity-development-division/rfps-public-notices).

3. Hold Virtual Public Hearings
a. Virtual public hearings shall provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with the grantee’s certifications, timely responses from local officials to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions and responses. b. That, for as long as national or local health authorities recommend social distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health reasons, the City may create virtual public hearings to fulfill applicable public hearing requirements for all grants from funds made available under this heading in the CARES Act.

4. Housing and Land Use Committee
a. To provide for timely response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all decisions relating to the uses of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds for COVID-19 response may bypass review by the Housing and Land Use Committee and proceed directly to City Council review.

The CPP is amended to include the following HUD waivers and alternative requirements:

ESG Program (ESG FY 19 and FY20; ESG-CV):
☒ HMIS Lead Activities
☒ Re-evaluations for Homelessness Prevention Assistance ☒ Housing Stability Case Management
☒ Restriction of Rental Assistance to Units with Rent at or Below FMR City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 11
CDBG FY19 and FY20
☒ Public Service Activities
☒ Citizen Participation and Public Hearings for Consolidated Plans (including Action Plans) ☒ Deadline to Submit Consolidated Plans (including Annual Action Plans) ☒ Waiver and Alternative Requirement Authority

CDBG-CV
☒ Public Service Activities
☒ Reimbursement of Costs
☒ Citizen Participation and Public Hearings for Consolidated Plans (including Action Plans) ☒ Deadline to Submit Consolidated Plans (including Annual Action Plans) ☒ Waiver and Alternative Requirement Authority
HOME, CDBG, HTF, ESG, and HOPWA Program Consolidated Planning Requirements:
☒ Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for Consolidated Plan Amendment ☒ Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment HOME
For Major Disaster Areas:
☒10% Administration and Planning Cap
☒ CHDO Set-aside Requirement
☒ Limits and Conditions on CHDO Operating Expense Assistance ☒ Matching Contribution Requirements
For All Participating Jurisdictions:
☒ Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment ☒ Income Documentation
☒ On-Site Inspections of HOME-assisted Rental Housing
☒ Four-Year Project Completion Requirement
Citizen Participation and Public Hearings for Consolidated Plans (including Action Plans) Provides that grantees may amend CPP’s to establish expedited procedures to draft, propose, or amend consolidated plans. Expedited procedures must include notice and reasonable opportunity to comment of no less than 5 days. The 5-day period can run concurrently for comments on the action plan amendment and amended citizen participation plans.

In-person public hearings are not required. Grantees may meet public hearing requirements with virtual public hearings if: 1) national/local health authorities recommend social distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health reasons; and 2) virtual hearings provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with the grantee’s certifications, timely responses from local officials to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions and responses.

Deadline to Submit Consolidated Plans (including Annual Action Plans) Extends the deadline for grantees to submit the fiscal year 2020-2021 AAP and 2020-2024 Con Plan submissions other updates to August 16, 2021.

City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 12
Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for Consolidated Plan Amendment Requirement: 30-day Public Comment Period.

Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401 Explanation: A CPD grantee may amend an approved consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR 91.505. Substantial amendments to the consolidated plan are subject to the citizen participation process in the grantee’s citizen participation plan. The citizen participation plan must provide citizens with 30 days to comment on substantial amendments.

Justification: Given the need to expedite actions to respond to COVID-19, HUD waives 24 CFR

91.105(c)(2) and (k), 91.115(c)(2) and (i) as specified below, in order to balance the need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19 with the statutory requirement to provide reasonable notice and opportunity for citizens to comment on substantial amendments concerning the proposed uses of CDBG, HOME, HTF, HOPWA or ESG funds.

Applicability: This 30-day minimum for the required public comment period is waived for substantial amendments, provided that no fewer than 5 days are provided for public comments on each substantial amendment. The waiver is available through the end of the recipient’s 2020 program year. Any recipient wishing to undertake further amendments to prior year plans following the 2020 program year can do so during the development of its FY 2021 Annual Action Plan.

Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment Requirement: Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment.

Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401 Explanation: As noted above, the regulations at 24 CFR 91.105 (for local governments) and

91.115 (for States) set forth the citizen participation plan requirements for recipients. For substantial amendments to the consolidated plan, the regulations require the recipient to follow its citizen participation plan to provide citizens with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment.

The citizen participation plan must state how reasonable notice and opportunity to comment will be given.

Justification: HUD recognizes the efforts to contain COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19. Therefore, HUD waives 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401 as specified below to allow these grantees to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to comment given their circumstances.

Applicability: This authority is in effect through the end of the 2020 program year.

CARES Act provisions related to citizen participation:

Provided further, That, notwithstanding sections 104(a)(2), (a)(3), and (c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(2), (a)(3), and (c)) and section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12705), a grantee may adopt and utilize expedited procedures to prepare, propose, modify, or amend its statement of activities City of Salinas Citizen Participation Plan Page 13
for grants from amounts made available under this heading in this Act and under the same heading in Public Law 116–94 and Public Law 116–6: Provided further, That under such expedited procedures, the grantee need not hold in-person public hearings, but shall provide citizens with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment of no less than 5 days: Provided further, That, for as long as national or local health authorities recommend social distancing and limiting public gatherings for public health reasons, a grantee may create virtual public hearings to fulfill applicable public hearing requirements for all grants from funds made available under this heading in this Act and under the same heading in Public Law 116–94 and Public Law 116–6:

Provided further, That any such virtual hearings shall provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with the grantee’s certifications, timely responses from local officials to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions and responses. 1 FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan Public Comments
From: Melissa Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 11:35 AM
To: [email protected]; housingwebmail
Cc: Starla Warren; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Attention Ms. Hunter, Comments on the Action Plan City Council Hello Sandra, we received the comment and it will be included.

Thank you,
Melissa Ruiz
Community Improvement
Assistant
Community Development Department
65 W. Alisal Street, Salinas, Ca 93901
[email protected]
P: (831) 758-7401
From: Sandra Reeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:47 PM
To: housingwebmail <[email protected]>
Cc: Starla Warren <[email protected]>; mchi_ed@mc‐housing.org Subject: Attention Ms. Hunter, Comments on the Action Plan City Council Dear Ms. Hunter: Attached are the Monterey Housing Inc. Affordable Acquisitions comments on the Annual Action Plan for the City Council Meeting on May 16, 2023
Sandra Reeder
Telephone: 831 229 1462
MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING, INC. AND
MCHI AFFORDABLE ACQUISITIONS. INC.

Physical Address Mailing Address
150 Cayuga Street, Suite 7 1522 Constitution Blvd, Suite 182 Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93906
[email protected]
831-970-9252
April 21, 2021
Ms. Megan Hunter
City of Salinas
Community Development Director
Community Development Housing Division
65 W. Alisal Street, Second Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Comments on the City of Salinas Annual Plan for CDBG and HOME funds Dear Ms. Hunter and City Council Members:

Monterey County Housing Inc. (MCHI) and MCHI Affordable Acquisitions, Inc. (MCHI/AA) are pleased to submit comments on the City of Salinas’ Annual Plan for Federal funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We are a previously designated Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) through the City of Salinas, which has a recently completed project in Parkside One with $16 million in subordinate loans, This level of commitment demonstrates MCHI’s commitment to the development of affordable housing in our community. Please reference the attached inventory and housing assets attached to this letter.

We are diligently working on our CHDO re-certification pending the release of the City’s new application form in May 2023 and urge the Council to support and move this process forward. for MCHI and its affiliate non-profit MCHI/AA’s application, the latter of which currently owns the property upon which Parkside Two is sited.

The project is owned and shovel ready aside for funding. It is the desire of MCHI/AA to move forward to build Parkside Two, and to partner with the City of Salinas to allow this to occur.

The project known as Parkside One brought into the community over $70,000,000 in site improvements, housing, and a community center along with another 88 units for senior households/
MCHI and MCHI/AA owns and manages properties in the City of Salians. Our inventory is attached.

We officially request the following be added to the document as a goal:
• Partner with MCHI and MCHI/AA to obtain CHDO Status
• Provide seed money and technical assistance funding to MCHI/AA to obtain CHDO Status and move forward with Parkside Two
• Partner with MCHI/AA to provide a predevelopment loan to MCHI/AA to conduct predevelopment activities on the site known as Parkside Two.

Ms Megan Hunter
City of Salinas
Community Development Director
April 21, 2023
Page Two
MCHI has operated in the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey since 1994, and has considerable cumulative experience of over 100 years through its staff, directors, and consultants. MCHI is now a separate non-profit entity with full ownership if its properties, assets, and funds. Parkside Two should be included in the City’s Action Plan MCHI looks forward to working to improve the living conditions and availability of low-income housing for households living in the City of Salinas.

Sincerely,
John Rose
Executive Director
Attachment:

Inventory of Assets and Property MCHI/MCHIAA
MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING INC.

AND MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING INC. AFFORDABLE ACQUISITIONS

INVENTORY OF PROPERTIES AND ASSETS

NAME AND ADDRESS OF

PROPERTY

OWNER NUMBER OF UNITS AND TYPE

PROPERTIES
LEO MEYER, 425 KING STREET,

KING CITY

MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING
INC.
44 ONE BEDROOM UNITS FOR

ELDERLY
JARDINES DEL MONTE, 1253

DEL MONTE, SALINAS

MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING
INC.
11 THREE BEDROOM
TOWNHOMES-1,288 Square
feet for families
t

PARKSIDE II
114 AND 115 PARKSIDE,

SALINAS

MONTEREY COUNTY HOUSING
INC. AFFORDABLE ACQUISIONS
36 ONE BEDROOM UNITS-498
square feet
4 TWO BEDROOM UNITS-744
square feet
4 FOUR BEDROOM UNITS-1,235
square feet
4 FIVE BEDROOM UNITS-1,396
square feet
Total Units Owned and
Managed
103 Units
ASSETS Sponsor -MCHI
Pueblo Del Mar-Transitional
Housing, Marina
Deed of Trust
$1,000,000
HACM owned from Health and
Human Services deed
restriction ends 2029
56 2-bedroom units
Tynan Village-Sponsor Deed of Trust
$7,000,000
171 Multi Family Units
Haciendas Three Deed of Trust
$4,000,000
55 Multi-family Units
Haciendas Senior Deed of Trust
$5,000,000
50 Senior Units
One Parkside Deed of Trust-
$16,100,000
Property Owner MCHI,AA
80 Senior Units
ASSETS
Total Value Deeds of Trust-
$33,100,000
Total Units Sponsored
412

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FY 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AMENDMENTS
Rod Powell, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
May 16, 2023
Background
 HUD Annual Action Plan (AAP)
 Year 4 of City’s FY 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan
 Strategic Plan for use of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds
 Describes Planned Activities and Funding
 Citizen Participation Plan (CPP)
 Policies and procedures for public participation
 Development of ConPlan, AAP, CAPER, AFH
Timeline
 Start of Public Comment Period April 15, 2023
 Housing and Land Use Committee May 9, 2023
 End of Public Comment Period May 16, 2023
 City Council Public Hearing May 16, 2023
 HUD AAP Submission Deadline August 16, 2023
FY 2023-2024 AAP Allocations
Funding Source Amount

CDBG HOME ESG
FY 23-24 Allocation $2,015,627 $812,241 $182,225
Estimated Program Income $60,000 $313,000 $0
Prior FY’s Allocations $0 $1,848,593 $0
Total $2,075,627 $2,973,834 $182,225
CDBG Funding Recommendations
Agency Program Amount
City of Salinas Program Administration (20%) $426,667
City of Salinas
Sherwood Recreation Center - Phase 4 $500,000
Activity Delivery $50,000
City of Salinas Republic Café Museum at 37 Soledad St $500,000 Activity Delivery $50,000
City of Salinas Hebbron Family Center $250,662
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity Fair Housing and Tenant/Landlord Services $75,000 City of Salinas Housing Referrals & Tenant/Landlord Services $34,840 City of Salinas Salinas Outreach and Response Team $200,000 Total Funding $2,075,627
HOME Funding Recommendations
Agency Program Amount
City of Salinas Program Administration (10%) $112,524
City of Salinas Republic Café Housing $2,482,022
Future Agency to be determined Future CHDO Activity $379,288 Total Funding $1,224,007
Additional HOME projects to consider:
 Motel Acquisition & Rehabilitation
 Scattered-site Single Family Housing
 467-479 E. Market St. Affordable Housing Project
 St. George CHISPA Senior Housing
ESG Funding Recommendations
Agency Program ESG Component Amount %
City of Salinas Program Administration Administration $13,667 7.5% City of Salinas Salinas Outreach and
Response Team Street Outreach* $100,000 54.9%
Community Homeless
Solutions
Rapid Re-Housing
Program Rapid Rehousing $68,558 37.6%
* No more than 60% to be used for Street Outreach
and Emergency Shelter Total $178,942 100%
Amendment to Citizen Participation Plan
Policies and procedures to encourage public participation  Con Plan
 AAP
 CAPER
 NRSA
 Section 8
 AIFH
 Incorporate fair housing language
Updates to Public Hearing Notices and Outreach
CEQA Consideration
 The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15378.

Strategic Plan Initiative
 Economic Development
 Housing/Affordable Housing
 Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability
 Public Safety
 Youth and Seniors
 Effective and Culturally Responsive Government
Departmental Coordination
 Finance
 Legal
 Library and Community Services
 Public Works
Fiscal and Sustainability Impact
 No General Fund Impact
 All AAP FY 2023-2024 Projects are funded with HUD CDBG, HOME and ESG Entitlement Funds
Recommendation
A motion to approve a Resolution:

1. approving the City of Salinas’ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan and its submittal to HUD; and

2. approving amendments to the City of Salinas’ Citizen Participation Plan and its submittal to HUD; and

3. authorizing the City Manager to incorporate any necessary minor modifications to the FY 2023-2024 AAP based upon community feedback prior to submissions to HUD; and

4. authorizing the Mayor, or designee, for and on behalf of the City, to execute any related agreements, contracts, certifications, or amendments related to the funding allocations set forth in the FY 2023-2024 AAP.

Questions & Comments
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-309, Version: 1
Republic Services Garbage & Recycling Rates FY 23-24
Approve a Resolution finding the proposed annual adjustments to Republic Services of Salinas’ (Republic Services) Schedule of Service Fees and Schedule of Rates for Residential and Commercial Customers effective July 1, 2023, to be both reasonable and within the terms of the Collection Services Agreement.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/10/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TITLE: REPUBLIC SERVICES GARBAGE & RECYCLING RATES FY 22-23 RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution finding the proposed annual adjustments to Republic Services of Salinas’ (Republic Services) Schedule of Service Fees and Schedule of Rates for Residential and Commercial Customers effective July 1, 2023, to be both reasonable and within the terms of the Collection Services Agreement.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Republic Services proposed rates for Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organics (Green Waste) Collection Services for Fiscal Year 2023-24 reflect an increase of 3.75% (or $1.21) for the typical 32-gallon residential trash service from $32.26 to $33.47 per month. The increase consists of 2.32% ($0.75) (4.0% CPI increase to the collection element of the rate) for Republic Services CPI, 0.54% (or $0.18) for SVSWA AB 939 Fees, 0.16% (or $0.05) for Recycling Processing, 0.16% (or $0.05) for Organics Processing and 0.56% (or $0.18) for City Franchise Fees.

For commercial services, the monthly rate for a customer with a 3-cubic yard bin collected once per week will increase 3.84% (or $19.26) from $501.97 to $521.23 per month. The increase consists of

2.61% (or $13.08) (4.0% CPI increase to the collection element of the rate for Republic Services CPI,

0.65% (or $3.29) for AB 939 Fees, and 0.58% (or $2.89) for City Franchise Fees. Commercial customers continue to have the option to reduce their monthly rates by taking advantage of recycling opportunities and/or by reducing service levels for underutilized capacity.

The City and R3 Consulting Group, Inc. have reviewed the rates with representatives of Republic Services in accordance with the Collection Services Agreement and find them reasonable and within the terms of the Collection Services Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

Since July 1, 2001, the City of Salinas has had an exclusive Collection Services Agreement with Allied Waste Services, dba Republic Services of Salinas (Republic Services), for municipal solid waste, recyclables, and green waste collection services. The Collection Services Agreement has had multiple amendments and extensions up to the current Amended and Restated Collection Services Page | 2
Agreement (October 2021) with a term expiring June 30, 2036, with an optional extension of five years at the City’s sole discretion.

The rates are made up of the following fees: Franchise, AB 939, Disposal, Recycle, Organics, Construction and Demolition, and the Collection element. The only fee that Republic can adjust is the collection element. The Franchise Fee is set to 15% by the City and the rest are set by either Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA) or by ReGen Monterey.

SVSWA takes the solid waste and organics (green waste). SVSWA has kept the solid waste fee the same as last year, increased the organics (green waste) from $57.00 to $58.25 per ton (increase of

2.2%) and increased the AB 939 by 12.9% (charged to trash service based on service level). SVSWA did increase their transportation fee from $18.75 to $19.75 per ton (increase of 5.3%) however this increase is fixed to the collection portion of the rate through an agreement between SVSWA and Republic Services.

Republic Services takes the recyclables to Regen Monterey who have increased their processing fee by 5%.

The table below provides a snapshot of the impact of the requested adjustments to the rates of a typical residential and commercial customer.

Table 3
Estimated Service Cost Increases for Hauler
Base Services by Rate
Classification
Rate
Classification
Approved
FY 22/23
Rates
Proposed
FY 23/24
Rates
Percent
Change Increase
32-Gallon Garbage,
64 Gallon Recycle,
96 Gallon Organics
Residential $32.26 $33.47 3.75% $1.21
32-Gallon Garbage,
64 Gallon Recycle,
96 Gallon Organics
MFD –
Curbside $32.26 $33.47 3.75% $1.21
32-Gallon Garbage,
64 Gallon Recycle,
96 Gallon Organics
MFD –
Consolidated
(Carts)
$50.05 $51.97 3.84% $1.92
3 Cubic Yard Garbage
Bin, 1 Pickup per Week
MFDConsolidated
(Bins)
$501.97 $521.23 3.84% $19.26
3 Cubic Yard Garbage
Bin, 1 Pickup per Week Commercial $501.97 $521.23 3.84% $19.26 2 Cubic Yard Recycle
Bin, 1 Pickup per Week Commercial $323.00 $336.00 4.02% $13.00 64-Gallon Organics
Cart, 1 Pickup per Week Commercial $68.04 $70.65 3.84% $2.61 Page | 3
* The CPI increase is only applied to the Republic portion of the adjusted rates and is not applied to the SVSWA’s disposal portion. Thus, the resulting percentage increase varies for each service on the rate schedule.

Across all levels of service, the average rate increase for Single Family Residential Customers is

3.73% while that for Commercial it is 3.81% and Multi Family is 3.81% Per Section 14-01.10 of the Salinas Municipal Code and Article 4 of the Collection Services Agreement, the Council annually reviews and adopts adjustments to Republic Services corresponding approved rates. Under Article 4.15, Notice of Rate Increases, of the Franchise Agreement, Republic Services is required to notify its customers 30 days in advance of the effective date of any approved rate adjustments. For Republic Services to comply with this public noticing requirement and for the rates to become effective July 1, 2023, Council must review and find the rate adjustments reasonable prior to the end of May 2023. Republic Service submitted its rate application in accordance with the timeframe as required in the Collection Services Agreement. Republic Services has submitted a request for consideration of adjustments to the Rate Schedules for fiscal year 2023-24.

Key Drivers
As part of the negotiation process, existing programs and solid waste expenditures were considered.

The Annual Rate Adjustment is directly linked to increased costs in transportation, tipping fees (SVSWA Landfill, ReGen Materials Recovery Facility) and the Solid Waste Element. All these cost increases are typical of the service provided and are deemed to be reasonable.

Inflation Component
Beginning with Rate Year 2023, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) adjustment shall be the sum of the weighted percentage change in the 12-month average of each CPI-U index number between the base period, which shall be the prior preceding year ending December 31st, and the preceding year ending December 31st as contained in the most recent release of the CPI-U. Therefore, the CPI-U rate adjustment effective July 1, 2023, will be based on the percentage changes between the 12-month average of the CPI-U indices from January 2022 to December 2022. Additionally, if in any calendar year that the calculation of the CPI-U exceeds four percent (4.00%), the total adjustment for that year will be four percent (4.00%), and no rollover amount will be added the rate adjustment percentage in the following year, or any subsequent year. If the CPI-U is negative, there will be no CPI-U adjustment to the Collection Element for that year. The annual CPI-U was calculated at 4.49% and the CPI applied to the 2023-24 Rate schedule is 4.00%.

SVSWA AB 939 Fees
Every year SVSWA reallocates its AB 939 non-disposal programs fee using the total tonnage landfilled over the prior three fiscal years. For FY 2023-24 the SVSWA increased AB 939 NonDisposal Program Fees from $2,136,300 to $2,428,616. This fee increase is meant to offset the additional funding needed to comply with all CalRecycle requirements focused on waste prevention, diversion, and recovery.

Page | 4
Franchise Fee
A typical component of such agreements, franchise fees represent the reasonable market value of the grant of the solid waste franchise. The City is paid a 15% franchise fee on the gross revenues for all services that Republic Service provides. The above increases for CPI, AB 939 Fees, Recycling and Organics Collection costs will also result in additional franchise fees.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This action supports the Council’s goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

While the rate review is largely conducted by Public Works, coordination occurs with both the Finance and Legal Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This item requires no additional expenditures or appropriations. Franchise Fees associate with these annual rate adjustments will generate additional General Fund revenue for the city and will be included in the upcoming 2023-24 fiscal year budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Proposed Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Approved Rates of Franchise Agreement effective 7/1/23
RESOLUTION NO. ___________________ (N.C.S.)
ADJUSTMENTS TO REPUBLIC SERVICES OF SALINAS’S

SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR SERVICE FEES AND APPROVED RATES FOR

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023
WHEREAS, Section 14-01.10 of the City of Salinas Code, and California Public Resources Code, Section 40059 allows the City to enter into a contract for collection, removal, and disposal of all garbage, wet garbage, rubbish or commercial rubbish; and WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has a Collection Services Agreement with Republic Services of Salinas to provide solid waste, recycling, and green waste collection services for the City; and
WHEREAS, per Agreement, Article 4, Contractor Compensation and Customer Rates, Republic Services may adjustment their rates on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, City of Salinas and R3 Consulting Group, Inc. staff have reviewed the proposed adjustments to the service fees and the proposed New Exhibit 1 – “Schedule of Approved Rates,” and found the adjustment to accurately reflect those formulas prescribed by the Agreement and found the service rates adjustments to be reasonable and accurate; and WHEREAS, if found to be reasonable and accurate, Republic Services will implement the proposed Schedule of Approved Rates effective July 1, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds and determines that the above recitals and accompanying staff report are true and correct and have served as the basis, in part, for the actions of the City Council set forth below; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed New Exhibit 1- “Schedule of Approved Rates,” attached hereto, is found and determined to be consistent and an accurate interpretation of the Franchise Agreement, and to be reasonable and accurate.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
FY23/24 Rates
Rate Code Description Rates
Residential Services:

Standard Weekly Residential Services: Monthly Rate
20 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $29.02 32 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $33.47 64 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $45.63 96 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $59.80 Senior Low Income - 20 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $21.04 Senior Low Income - 32 Gallon Garbage, 64 Gallon Recycle, 96 Gallon Yardwaste $21.04 Additional Weekly Residential Services: Monthly Rate
Additional 32 Gallon Garbage $22.79
Additional 64 Gallon Garbage $33.48
Additional 96 Gallon Garbage $49.46
Backyard Service Charge (additional charge) $29.30
Backyard Service for Permanently Disabled No Charge
Additional One Time Residential Charges: Per Occurrence Extra Pickup at Same time as Regular Service, Customer Fills Container - 20 Gallon $6.93 Extra Pickup at Same time as Regular Service, Customer Fills Container - 32 Gallon $12.22 Extra Pickup at Same time as Regular Service, Customer Fills Container - 64 Gallon $22.58 Extra Pickup at Same time as Regular Service, Customer Fills Container - 96 Gallon $35.35 Each Additional Bag of Garbage (Up to 32 Gallon) - Driver required to load $11.63 Payment and Research Fee $27.68
Restart and Readjustment fee - Administrative $16.71
Residential Cart Overflow - 20 Gallon $6.08
Residential Cart Overflow - 32 Gallon $7.28
Residential Cart Overflow - 64 Gallon $9.82
Residential Cart Overflow - 96 Gallon $12.98
Additional Trip to Customer Location at Customer Request $42.97 Bulky Goods Pickup - Limit 1 Item $112.14
Bulky Goods Pickup - Each Additional Item Not Requiring an Additional Trip $36.82 4 Yard Front-Load Clean Up Container (Maximum 5 Days, No Saturday/Sunday Services) $246.39 6 Yard Front-Load Clean Up Container (Maximum 5 Days, No Saturday/Sunday Services) $322.55 8 Yard Front-Load Clean Up Container (Maximum 5 Days, No Saturday/Sunday Services) $429.91 Mandatory Return Service Charge $21.36
Note: Additional disposal fees for non-standard items (box springs, tires, televisions, etc.) in which Republic Services is charged by the designated transfer station or landfill will be passed on to the customer when it is possible to identify the customer in violation.

PROPOSED NEW EXHIBIT 1 - Schedule of Approved Rates
Franchise Agreement - Republic Services Services & The City of Salinas Commercial Services:

Standard Weekly Commercial Services: Monthly Rate
20 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $37.28
32 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $59.74
64 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $76.36
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $92.51
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $180.23
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $341.15
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $446.63
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $526.66
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 6 Pickups per Week $631.93
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $367.93
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $441.24
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $521.23
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $598.29
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $742.21
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $881.92
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $601.45
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $737.44
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $878.51
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,018.28
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,310.79
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,578.30
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $858.58
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,057.35
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,286.61
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,463.64
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,881.63
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $2,274.67
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,115.77
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,377.23
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,643.75
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,909.04
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $2,452.57
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $2,971.01
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,372.99
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,697.11
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,041.79
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,354.31
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $3,023.53
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $3,667.44
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $1,629.99
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,017.03
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,409.01
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,799.91
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $3,594.46
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $4,363.87
2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $484.58 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $880.41 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $1,288.87 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $1,697.38 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $2,105.56 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $2,514.32 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $799.66 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $1,435.36 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $2,121.90 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $2,757.61 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $3,433.94 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $4,079.67 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $969.55 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $1,760.76 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $2,577.44 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $3,394.19 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $4,210.38 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $5,027.46 Note: Front End Compactor will be charge two time the equivalent front load service. Front-load compactors will not be provided by Republic Services. Customers will be required to purchase the compactor.

Additional Weekly Front-Load Commercial Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $48.97 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Additional One Time Front-Load Commercial Charges:

Overloaded Container for First Cubic Yard, No Dismount Required $48.13 Overloaded Container for Each Cubic Yard in excess of 1, No Dismount Required $39.35 Additional Pickup, 2 Cubic Yard Bin $161.76
Additional Pickup, 3 Cubic Yard Bin $209.40
Additional Pickup, 4 Cubic Yard Bin $256.42
Additional Pickup, 6 Cubic Yard Bin $348.27
Additional Pickup, 8 Cubic Yard Bin $436.45
Additional Trip to Customer Location at Customer Request $47.30 Replacement Lock and Key $44.98
Contamination (less than 4 yards of weekly service) $102.80 Contamination (4 or more yards of weekly service) $154.20 Note: Additional disposal fees for non-standard items (box springs, tires, televisions, etc.) in which Republic Services is charged by the designated transfer station or landfill will be passed on to the customer when it is possible to identify the customer in violation.

Recycle Services:

Standard Weekly Commercial Services: Monthly Rate
20 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $28.44
32 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $45.56
64 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $58.16
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $70.40
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $137.15
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $259.86
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $340.18
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $401.05
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $280.65
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $336.00
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $396.47
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $454.68
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $563.32
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $668.74
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickup per Week $458.51
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $561.08
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $667.55
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $773.01
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $993.87
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,195.61
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $654.44
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $804.31
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $977.51
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,110.75
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,426.14
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,722.13
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $850.40
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,047.51
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,248.48
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,448.52
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,858.49
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $2,249.28
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,046.39
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,290.71
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,550.75
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,786.19
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,290.87
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,776.19
Additional Weekly Front-Load Commercial Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $48.97 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Additional One Time Front-Load Commercial Charges:

Overloaded Container Per Cubic Yard $40.00
Additional Pickup, 2 Cubic Yard Bin $88.06
Additional Pickup, 3 Cubic Yard Bin $98.84
Additional Pickup, 4 Cubic Yard Bin $109.01
Additional Pickup, 6 Cubic Yard Bin $127.15
Additional Pickup, 8 Cubic Yard Bin $141.63
Additional Trip to Customer Location at Customer Request $47.30 Replacement Lock and Key $44.98
Contamination (less than 4 yards of weekly service) $102.80 Contamination (4 or more yards of weekly service) $154.20 Note: Additional disposal fees for non-standard items (box springs, tires, televisions, etc.) in which Republic Services is charged by the designated transfer station or landfill will be passed on to the customer when it is possible to identify the customer in violation.

Organic Waste Services:

Standard Weekly food waste Services: Monthly Rate
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $52.75
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $105.49
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $158.22
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $210.97
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $263.69
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $70.65
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $141.28
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $211.94
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $282.58
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $353.22
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $93.19
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $181.58
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $343.18
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $449.33
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $530.05
1 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $368.14
1 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $601.66
1 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $858.91
1 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,121.46
1 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $1,380.11
2 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $441.20
2 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $737.40
2 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $1,057.16
2 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,388.61
2 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $1,711.34
3 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $525.50
3 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $887.05
3 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $1,299.42
3 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,660.82
3 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $2,063.14
Additional Weekly Front-Load food waste Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $49.02 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Multi Family Services:

Standard Weekly Multi Family Services: Monthly Rate
20 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Curbside7, 1 Pickup per Week $29.02 32 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Curbside7, 1 Pickup per Week $33.47 64 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Curbside7, 1 Pickup per Week $45.63 96 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Curbside7, 1 Pickup per Week $59.80 20 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Consolidated Collection8, 1 Pickup per Week $32.90 32 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Consolidated Collection8, 1 Pickup per Week $51.97 64 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Consolidated Collection8, 1 Pickup per Week $66.06 96 Gallon Garbage Cart - Multi Family Consolidated Collection8, 1 Pickup per Week $79.76 20 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $37.28
32 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $59.74
64 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $76.36
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $92.51
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $180.23
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $341.15
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $446.63
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $526.66
96 Gallon Garbage Cart, 6 Pickups per Week $631.93
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $367.93
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $441.24
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $521.23
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $598.29
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $742.21
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $881.92
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $601.45
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $737.44
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $878.51
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,018.28
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,310.79
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,578.30
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $858.58
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,057.35
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,286.61
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,463.64
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,881.63
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $2,274.67
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,115.77
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,377.23
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,643.75
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,909.04
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $2,452.57
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $2,971.01
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,372.99
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,697.11
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,041.79
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,354.31
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $3,023.53
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $3,667.44
1 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $1,629.99
2 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,017.03
3 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,409.01
4 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $2,799.91
6 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $3,594.46
8 Cubic Yard Garbage Bin, 6 Pickups per Week $4,363.87
2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $484.58 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $880.41 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $1,288.87 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $1,697.38 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $2,105.56 2 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $2,514.32 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $799.66 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $1,435.36 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $2,121.90 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $2,757.61 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $3,433.94 3 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $4,079.67 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 1 Pickup per Week $969.55 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 2 Pickups per Week $1,760.76 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 3 Pickups per Week $2,577.44 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 4 Pickups per Week $3,394.19 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 5 Pickups per Week $4,210.38 4 Cubic Yard Front Load Compactor, 6 Pickups per Week $5,027.46 Note: Front-load compactors will not be provided by Republic Services. Customers will be required to purchase the compactor.
7) Applies to only Multi-Family customers where individual dwelling units are serviced identically to Residential Services, where carts are serviced curbside by an automated side loader, and drivers are not required to exit the collection vehicle. The determination of Multi-Family Curbside customers is the sole discretion of the Contractor. 8) Applies to Multi-Family Customers utilizing cart-only services as of June 30, 2022, and cannot be serviced identically to Residential Services. After June 30, 2022, the application of Multi-Family Consolidated Collection rates for new customers or customers requesting service changes is the sole discretion of the Contractor.

Additional Weekly Front-Load Multi Family Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $48.97 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Additional One Time Front-Load Multi Family Charges:

Overloaded Container for First Cubic Yard, No Dismount Required $48.84 Overloaded Container for Each Cubic Yard in excess of 1, No Dismount Required $39.35 Additional Pickup, 2 Cubic Yard Bin $161.76
Additional Pickup, 3 Cubic Yard Bin $209.40
Additional Pickup, 4 Cubic Yard Bin $256.42
Additional Pickup, 6 Cubic Yard Bin $348.27
Additional Pickup, 8 Cubic Yard Bin $436.45
Additional Trip to Customer Location at Customer Request $47.30 Replacement Lock and Key $44.98
Contamination (less than 4 yards of weekly service) $102.80 Contamination (4 or more yards of weekly service) $154.20 Note: Additional disposal fees for non-standard items (box springs, tires, televisions, etc.) in which Republic Services is charged by the designated transfer station or landfill will be passed on to the customer when it is possible to identify the customer in violation.

Recycle Services:

Standard Weekly Multi Family Services: Monthly Rate
20 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $24.15
32 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $38.69
64 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $49.35
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $59.71
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $116.32
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $220.51
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $288.65
96 Gallon Recycle Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $340.26
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $238.29
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $285.07
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $336.20
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $385.42
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $477.23
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 1 Pickup per Week $566.31
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickup per Week $389.20
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $475.86
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $565.82
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $654.94
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $841.61
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 2 Pickups per Week $1,012.02
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $555.48
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $682.07
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $828.49
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $940.96
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,207.45
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 3 Pickups per Week $1,457.44
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $721.78
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $888.26
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,058.02
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,227.00
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,573.35
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 4 Pickups per Week $1,903.40
1 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $888.10
2 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,094.45
3 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,314.16
4 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,512.96
6 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $1,939.28
8 Cubic Yard Recycle Bin, 5 Pickups per Week $2,349.15
Additional Weekly Front-Load Multi Family Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $48.97 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Additional One Time Front-Load Multi Family Charges:

Overloaded Container Per Cubic Yard $33.73
Additional Pickup, 2 Cubic Yard Bin $74.32
Additional Pickup, 3 Cubic Yard Bin $83.21
Additional Pickup, 4 Cubic Yard Bin $91.60
Additional Pickup, 6 Cubic Yard Bin $106.48
Additional Pickup, 8 Cubic Yard Bin $118.26
Additional Trip to Customer Location at Customer Request $40.21 Replacement Lock and Key $38.23
Contamination (less than 4 yards of weekly service) $87.38 Contamination (4 or more yards of weekly service) $131.07 Note: Additional disposal fees for non-standard items (box springs, tires, televisions, etc.) in which Republic Services is charged by the designated transfer station or landfill will be passed on to the customer when it is possible to identify the customer in violation.

Organic Waste Services:

Standard Weekly food waste Services: Monthly Rate
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $52.75
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $105.49
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $158.22
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $210.97
32 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $263.69
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $70.65
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $141.28
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $211.94
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $282.58
64 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $353.22
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 1 Pickup per Week $93.19
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 2 Pickups per Week $181.58
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 3 Pickups per Week $343.18
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 4 Pickups per Week $449.33
96 Gallon Organics Cart, 5 Pickups per Week $530.05
1 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $368.14
1 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $601.66
1 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $858.91
1 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,121.46
1 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $1,380.11
2 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $441.20
2 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $737.40
2 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $1,057.16
2 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,388.61
2 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $1,711.34
3 YD, 1 Pickup per Week $525.50
3 YD, 2 Pickup per Week $887.05
3 YD, 3 Pickup per Week $1,299.42
3 YD, 4 Pickup per Week $1,660.82
3 YD, 5 Pickup per Week $2,063.14
Additional Weekly Front-Load food waste Services: Monthly Rate Dismount and Push Charge per Bin Serviced Per Week $8.49 Key Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $10.10
Enclosure Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Gate Service Charge per Bin Serviced per Week $11.21
Long Walk per Bin Serviced per Week $26.65
Maximum Additional Weekly Charges per Bin Serviced per Week $33.50 Scout Truck (Container Truck) container pull out $49.37 Per Yard surcharge for customers pre-compacting trash. $49.02 Note: 1) Key charges are allowed when container access requires the driver to carry a key and unlock a lock to empty the container. Key charges do not apply if a customer's lock is left in the unlocked position. 2) Enclosure charges are allowed when collection requires removing a container from an enclosure and replacing it when emptied. 3) Gate service charges are allowed when collection requires opening a closed or locked gate in order to access a container. 4) Long walk charges are allowed when a container is placed further than 10 feet from where the collection vehicle has access. 5) Charges for key, enclosure, gate, and long walk service are not cumulative pickup charges.

The contractor's service fees for a customer requiring one or more of the special services will be a maximum service fee (as specified in the table above) as adjusted for CPI, per pickup for any combination of the four service categories. 6) Dismount and Push Charges are allowed when container service requires the driver to dismount and push the container from a fixed position and return it to the same position after service.

Roll-Off Services:

Standard Roll-Off Services: Per Pull Service Fee
C&D Open Top Debris Boxes (10 yard, 15 yard, 20 yard, 30 yard, 40 yard) $350.82 Open Top Debris Boxes (10 yard, 15 yard, 20 yard, 30 yard, 40 yard) $350.82 Closed Top Debris Boxes (10 yard, 15 yard, 20 yard, 30 yard, 40 yard) $405.85 Roll-Off Compactors (Up to 10 Ton Legal Limit for our Trucks) $461.04 Self-Contained Roll-Off Compactors (Up to 10 Ton Legal Limit for our Trucks) $502.43 Note: 1) Service fees for Debris Boxes include five days usage. If the 5th day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Holiday in which Republic Services operations are closed, the Box will be picked up on the following weekday at no additional charge. 2) Roll-off compactors will not be provided by Republic Services. Customers will be required to purchase the compactor.

Additional Roll-Off Charges Per Ton Collected: Per Ton fee C&D Per Ton Rate $140.69
Garbage Per Ton Rate $158.79
Organics Per Ton Rate $141.71
Additional One Time Roll-Off Charges: Per Occurrence
Load Leveling Charge per 15 minutes (minimum 15 minutes) $30.98 Turn-away of Scheduled Service (Includes cancellation less than 24 hours, bin blocked or not ready) $61.95 Relocation of Box on Same Property $92.95
Additional Day for a Debris Box (Not to exceed a total of 7 days) $52.53 Minimum Lift/Demurrage (trash hauled 2x a month, ryc and C&D 1x a month otherwise fee charged) $192.75 Contamination $385.51
Delivery Fee $257.01
Late Payment Fees:

In accordance with National Corporate Policy and as approved by the state attorney general Republic Services will be incorporating a late payment fee equal to 1.5% of the outstanding balance or $5.00 which ever is greater.

REPUBLIC SERVICES GARBAGE
& RECYCLING RATES FY 23-24
David Jacobs, PE LS
Public Works Director
Public Works Department
May 16, 2023
Basic 32-Gallon
Increase 3.75% ($1.21)
2023 Residential Rate Adjustment
Republic
Operations
AB 939 Fee
City Franchise
Fee

0.56%

2.32%

0.54%
Recycle
Organics

0.16%

0.16%
2023 Commercial Rate Adjustment
1 x Week Basic 3-Yard
Increase 3.84% ($19.26)
Republic
Operations
City Franchise
Fee
AB 939 Fees

0.65%

2.61%

0.58%
Summary of Rate Adjustment
Components
Typical Service Type Residential Commercial
Trash Service Level 32-Gallon 3-Cubic Yard
FY 22-23 Adjusted Rate $ 32.26 $ 501.97
Proposed Adjustments:

FY 23-24 Franchise Fee $ 0.18 $ 2.89
FY 23-24 SVSWA AB 939 Fees $ 0.18 $ 3.29
Disposal Portion $ - $ -
Recycling Processing $ 0.05 $ -
Organics Processing $ 0.05 $ -
C&D Processing $ - $ -
Collection Element (Hauler CPI 3.57%) $ 0.75 $ 13.08
FY 23-24 Proposed Monthly Rate $ 33.47 $ 521.23
Monthly Increase $ 1.21 $ 19.26
Percent Increase 3.75% 3.84%
2023 Multi-Family Rate Adjustment
Curbside Collection
2022 Rate $32.26
2023 Rate $33.47 3.75% Increase
$0.18 Franchise Fee
$0.18 AB 939 Fee
$0.05 Recycle fee
$0.05 Organic Fee
$0.75 Collection
2022 Multi-Family Rate Adjustment
Consolidated Charges
3 Yard Garbage Bin
2022 Rate $501.97
2023 Rate $521.23 3.84% Increase
3 Yard Recycle
2022 Rate 323.17
2023 Rate 336.20 4.03% Increase
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-303, Version: 1
General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and Rezone 2022-001; Amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Residential Medium Density (8-15 Units/Acre) to Residential High Density (15-24 Units/Acre) and Rezone from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H2.1) of a vacant 2.6-acre lot located at 1 Preston Street Approve a Resolution affirming the findings, adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2022-002) changing the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density; and dopt an Ordinance to Rezone from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density (RZ 2022-001).

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/10/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 16, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, ACTING DIRECTOR
THROUGH: COURTNEY GROSSMAN, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: GRANT LEONARD, PLANNING MANAGER

OSCAR RESENDIZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
TITLE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2022-001 AND REZONE 2022-001; A VACANT 2.6 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1 PRESTON STREET
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following two actions:

1. Approve a resolution affirming the findings, adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2022-002) changing the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance to Rezone from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density (RZ 2022-001).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Salinas is proposing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from Residential Medium Density (8-15 units/acre) to Residential High Density (15- 24 units/acre) and Rezone (RZ) from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1) of a vacant 2.6-acre lot located at 1 Preston Street. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project, which is known as ER 2022- 009. The purpose of the GPA and RZ is to facilitate the production of high-density housing, consistent with the City’s General Plan. The GPA and RZ would facilitate the development of up to approximately 76 housing units (anticipating a density bonus). A draft ordinance for the GPA and RZ is provided as an attachment to this staff report.

The project does not involve construction or other physical changes to the site because there are currently no development proposals. The project is intended to encourage future higher density development that would provide new housing consistent with the Salinas General Plan. This Page | 2
project is being partially funded by Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) grant funding for the purpose of increasing housing production in the City.

BACKGROUND:

In December 2019, the City accepted a SB 2 grant award from the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) in the amount of $310,000. Grant funds are to be used to facilitate the production of housing by undertaking the necessary planning and environmental studies and analyses to consider changing land use and zoning designations of identified opportunity sites to allow for higher density residential or mixed-use development. This SB 2 grant award enabled the City to undertake the planning and environmental study and analysis required to prepare the proposed Amendments. The SB 2 grant is awarded to cities for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans that streamline housing development approval and accelerate housing production.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone is to facilitate the production of high-density housing, consistent with the City’s General Plan. The GPA and RZ would affect

2.6 acres and would facilitate the development of up to approximately 76 housing units (anticipating a density bonus). The project would allow for greater housing density and more flexible development standards. These proposed general plan and zoning changes are shown on Exhibit “D”. The project does not involve construction or other physical changes to the site.

The property is located in the Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) Zoning District with Focused Growth (FG-2: North Main Street/Soledad Street) and Flood District (F) overlays. The following provides an overview of the land uses and zoning districts adjacent to the project site:

North: Parks (P) - Flood District (F) overlay
South: Mixed Arterial Frontage (MAF) – Focused Growth (FG-2: North Main Street/Soledad Street) /Flood District (F) overlays
East: Residential High Density (R-H-2.1) – Focused Growth (FG-2: North Main Street/Soledad Street) /Flood District (F) overlays
West: Single-family Residential/Low Density Residential (R-L-5.5) - Flood District (F) overlay
General Plan Amendment 2022-001
Per the 2002 Salinas General Plan, the “High-Density Residential” designation allows for development of row houses, condominiums, and apartments. The designation allows a maximum of 24 units per net acre. Uses such as mobile and modular homes, public facilities, day care, churches and others that are compatible with and oriented toward serving the needs of the highdensity neighborhood may also be considered. The maximum density of this land use designation may be increased in accordance with the density bonus provisions of the California Government Code and the City's Zoning Ordinance.

Page | 3
Per the 2002 Salinas General Plan, Focused Growth Areas are existing urbanized areas where additional growth and/or redevelopment and revitalization would be appropriate and provide benefits to the community. By selectively increasing density of development in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, the pressure to develop agricultural lands is also reduced.

The project site is currently designated “Residential Medium Density (8-15 du/ac)”. The proposed Amendment is consistent. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the existing designation for the project site and amend the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy Map to align with the proposed rezoning of the site to Residential High Density (15-24 du/ac). The Amendment would be consistent with Salinas General Plan policies and the General Plan land use designation of the adjacent site to the east of the subject site.

The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan Goal H-1, by increasing the allowed density and providing a range of housing opportunities to adequately address existing and projected needs in Salinas. The project also furthers General Plan Policy H-1.3, by identifying adequate sites to facilitate and encourage housing production for the existing and projected housing needs of the City. In addition, the project is consistent with General Plan Goal H-2, by maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods and housing stock.

Rezone 2022-001
Residential- High Density (R-H-2.1) provides for high density multifamily dwelling units where the minimum density is more than 15 dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density is not more than 20 dwelling units per net acre without density bonus. Per Zoning Code Section 37-

30.140, the purpose of the “Residential high density (R-H)” land use designation is to provide appropriately located areas for high density and multifamily dwellings consistent with the General Plan and with standards of public health and safety established by the Municipal Code. This includes:
 Provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, inappropriate population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental impacts.  Promote development of affordable housing, housing for qualifying residents, and day care facilities by providing a density bonus for projects, which meet state and/or city density bonus requirements.
 Achieve design compatibility through site development regulations and design standards.  Protect adjoining low and medium density residential districts from excessive noise or loss of sun, light, quiet, and privacy resulting from proximity to multifamily dwellings.  Provide sites for public and semipublic land uses needed to complement residential development or requiring a residential environment.
 Ensure the provision of public services and facilities needed to accommodate planned population densities.
 Encourage attractive and interesting residential streetscapes and high-density developments that are pedestrian-oriented and reflect traditional residential design Page | 4
principles and promote safe residential neighborhoods through the incorporation of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) features in dwelling and site design.

For the proposed Residential High Density Development Regulations to be permitted, the project site will need to be rezoned “Residential High Density” (R-H). The purpose of the proposed Rezone is to facilitate the production of housing which per R-H-2.1 Zoning Code Section 37-

30.150(j)(1) the minimum density is more than 15 dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density is not more than 20 dwelling units per net acre without density bonus.

The proposed rezoning of the project site would be consistent with Residential High Density (RH) District and Focused Growth (FG) Overlay District. The project would comply with the development regulations and design standards of both the R-H and FG-2 District by:
 Creating healthy neighborhood centers where residents of all economic and cultural backgrounds can live, work, walk, shop, exercise, and spend quality time outdoors.  Increasing pedestrian activity by creating neighborhood centers that are conveniently accessed by public transit.
 Encouraging creative architecture and public design that communicate a neighborhood's locale, purpose, priorities, and personality to those who use the space, and create revitalized neighborhoods through infill development and redevelopment activities.

Consideration of Amendments
Chapter 37, Article VI, Divisions 12 and 14 provides for a process whereby all General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments are brought before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for consideration and a final decision. On April 19, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed Amendments and approved the attached Planning Commission Resolution 2023-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and Rezone 2022-001. The April 19, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report and draft Planning Commission minutes are provided as attachments to this staff report.

The City Council may approve the proposed Amendments if all of the findings set forth in the attached City Council Resolution and Ordinance are established. Per Zoning Code Section 37-

60.930(d), an affirmative vote of not less than four (4) votes of the City Council is required for the Council to approve the General Plan Amendment. Prior to taking action on the proposed Amendments, the City Council will need to affirm environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the project. Based upon review of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not result in a significant effect on the environment because the mitigation measures outlined in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been included in the project Page | 5
(see Reso Exhibit “2”). The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were routed to responsible agencies and posted at the County Clerk’s Office on January 27, 2023; the deadline for comments was February 26, 2023. The State Clearinghouse received the document on January 27, 2023; the deadline for Clearinghouse comments was February 26, 2023 (SCH Number 2023010626). Comments received are discussed below.

On May 20 and June 2, 2021, the City of Salinas mailed local tribes a Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letter via certified mail. Under AB 52, Native American tribes are provided 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation. Under SB 18, tribes are provided 90 days to respond. The City did not receive a request for formal consultation under AB 52. As of the date this report was written, no requests for additional consultation were received.

It should be noted that the circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration incorrectly stated the General Plan land use designation of Residential High Density maximum density to be 15- 20 units/acre when the correct maximum number of units per acre is 24. Staff has identified this error and the final ordinance to City Council reflects the correct density of 15-24 units/acre.

Agency Responses:

Public comment was received via email on February 9, 2023, from Mr. Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substance Control. Comments and response to comments are paraphrased below with complete comment and response being provided as attachments to this report.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 1 Preston Street Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following:
groundbreaking activities, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site. Page | 6 DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND. DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.

2. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation Page | 6
and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

3. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

4. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

Staff Response: The CEQA consultant (Rincon Consultants, Inc.) prepared the following response to DTSC’s comments. Staff provided comments via email to Mr. McCreary.

1. Health and Safety Code section 101480 authorizes a responsible party, as defined, to request that a local officer supervise remedial action if a release of waste occurs, and remedial action is required. As stated in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, no items of potential environmental concern were identified at the project site. Therefore, oversight of a qualified regulatory investigation and no remedial action would be required at this time. No revisions to the IS-MND are required in response to this comment.

2. Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study for additional information on historic uses of the project site. As discussed therein, it was found that the project site was generally undeveloped until the 1970s. As stated in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, future operation activities on the project site are not anticipated to release hazardous wastes or substances, but construction activities could result in the transport, storage, or use of potentially hazardous materials. The project would be required to comply with various federal, state, and local regulations, including those set forth by DTSC, which are designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. No items of potential environmental concern were identified at the project site. Therefore, there are no required investigations or remediation needed, and no revisions to the IS-MND are warranted.

3. According to DTSC, there are currently no established standards within applicable statues and regulations that address environmental requirements for imported fill material.1 Sampling of backfill soil would not be required. Additionally, the property owner would be liable if contaminated soil were imported to the site. No revisions to the IS-MND are required in response to this comment.

4. Based on review of historical topographic maps from 1910 to 1964, the project site has not been used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the project site has not been used for weed abatement or related activities. As discussed within Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, compliance with existing DTSC regulations would reduce the Page | 7
risk of potential release of hazardous materials during demolition, dewatering, soil disturbance/grading, and construction. No revisions to the ISMND are required in response to this comment.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed Amendments support the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 goal of Housing/Affordable Housing by creating opportunities for future housing development. The proposed GPA and RZ will facilitate the production of higher-density housing of up to approximately 76 housing units (anticipating a density bonus), consistent with the City’s General Plan.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Community Development Department Advanced Planning and Plan and Project Implementation (APPI) division administers the implementation of the SB2 grant, managed the preparation of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration and drafted the Amendments in coordination with other CDD divisions (Current Planning and Housing), Public Works, Economic Development staff and the City Attorney’s office.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There are no additional fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund associated with the approval of the Amendments. Staff time for managing the SB2 grant and the preparation of CEQA documents was fully funded by SB 2 grant funds. Staff time dedicated to preparing the Amendments and this report is already incorporated in the 2022-2023 Community Development APPI division budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft City Council Resolution for GPA 2022-001 and Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following Exhibits:

Reso Exhibit 1: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), dated January 2023
Reso Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Reso Exhibit 3: Proposed General Plan Amendment 2022-001 (GPA 2022- 001) Map and Proposed Rezone 2022-001 (RZ 2022-001)
Map

2. Draft Rezone Ordinance for Rezone 2022-001 with following Exhibits:

Ord Exhibit 1: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), dated January 2023
Ord Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ord Exhibit 3: Proposed General Plan Amendment 2022-001 (GPA 2022- 001) Map and Proposed Rezone 2022-001 (RZ 2022-001)
Map

3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 19, 2023- Packet with exhibits Exhibit 1: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Page | 8
Exhibit 2: Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Exhibit A Project Location
Exhibit B Surrounding Land Uses
Exhibit C Existing Zoning District
Exhibit D Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Exhibit E Letter from Department of Toxic Substance Control, from Mr.

Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Dated February 9, 2023.

Exhibit F Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), dated January 2023
Exhibit G 1 Preston Street - Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program

4. Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes for April 19, 2023

5. Planning Commission Resolution
Exhibits for PC Resolution
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

RESOLUTION BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALINAS GENERAL

PLAN TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (8-15 UNITS/ACRE) TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (15-24 UNITS/ACRE) OF A VACANT 2.6-ACRE LOT LOCATED AT 1 PRESTON STREET (GPA 2022-001 RELATED TO RZ 2022-001)
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the Salinas City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and related Rezone 2022-001 of a vacant 2.6-acre lot located at 1 Preston Street as described in more detail below:

1. General Plan Amendment 2022-001 (GPA 2022-001); Change the land use designation from Residential Medium Density (8-15 units/acre) to Residential High Density (15-24 units/acre); and

2. The related Rezone 2022-001 (RZ 2022-001); Change the Zoning designation from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1); WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines prepared an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, for General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and related Rezone 2022-001 herein incorporated by reference and included as Exhibit “1”; and WHEREAS, the City completed and filed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Monterey County Clerk on January 27, 2023 which commenced a 30-day local public review period starting on January 27, 2023 and ended on February 26, 2023; mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners located within 300-feet the project site on January 27, 2023; and posted the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in locations throughout the City of Salinas City Hall and administrative offices on January 27, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse on January 27, 2023, which commenced a 30-day local public review period starting on January 27, 2023, and ending on February 26, 2023 (SCH Number 2023010626); and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2023, the Salinas Planning Commission, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Rezone 2022-001 and related GPA 2022-001; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the proposed GPA 2022-001 and RZ 2022-001 and independently determined that all impacts were adequately addressed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration incorrectly 2 stated the maximum density as 15-20 units/acre when the actual Residential High Density designation is 15-24 units/acre, and this error has been subsequently corrected in the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission weighed the evidence presented at said public hearing, considered the staff report, determined that positive findings could be established for approval of the General Plan Amendment 2022-001 (GPA 2022-001), and adopted Resolution No. 2023-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve RZ 2022-001 and related GPA 2022- 001; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the City Council weighed the evidence presented at the public hearing, including the staff presentation and the Staff Report which is on file at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office and the Community Development Department, and all public testimony and documentary evidence introduced and received at the public hearing, together with the record of environmental review; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council herby approves a resolution:
a. Adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b. Adopting the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained in Exhibit “2”; and
c. Approving General Plan Amendment 2022-001; and
d. Adopting the following findings as the basis for its determination, and that the foregoing recitations are true and correct, and are included herein by reference as findings:

For the Mitigated Negative Declaration:

The City Council hereby finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared with respect to the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and related environmental documents, together with the comments received during the public review process. On the basis of the whole record before it, the Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Amendments will have a significant effect on the environment as the mitigation measures outlined in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reduce future project related impacts to less than significant level (see Exhibit “2” of attachment 1) and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis. On this basis, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the project. Based upon review of the Initial Study, 3 the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment because the mitigation measures outlined in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been included in the project (see Exhibit “2”). The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were routed to responsible agencies on January 27, 2023, and posted at the County Clerk’s Office on January 27, 2023; the deadline for comments was February 26, 2023. The State Clearinghouse received the document on January 27, 2023; the deadline for Clearinghouse comments was February 26, 2023 (SCH Number 2023010626).

Public comment was received via email on February 9, 2023, from Mr. Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substance Control. Comments and response to comments are paraphrased below with complete comment and response being provided as attachments to this report.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 1 Preston Street Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following:
groundbreaking activities, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.

2. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

3. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

4. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural 4 lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

Staff Response: The CEQA consultant (Rincon Consultants, Inc.) prepared the following response comments to the comments made by Mr. McCreary and Staff provided comments via email to Mr.

McCreary.

1. Health and Safety Code section 101480 authorizes a responsible party, as defined, to request that a local officer supervise remedial action if a release of waste occurs and remedial action is required. As stated in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, no items of potential environmental concern were identified at the project site. Therefore, oversight of a qualified regulatory investigation and no remedial action would be required at this time. No revisions to the IS-MND are required in response to this comment.

2. Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study for additional information on historic uses of the project site. As discussed therein, it was found that the project site was generally undeveloped until the 1970s. As stated in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, future operation activities on the project site are not anticipated to release hazardous wastes or substances, but construction activities could result in the transport, storage, or use of potentially hazardous materials. The project would be required to comply with various federal, state, and local regulations, including those set forth by DTSC, which are designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. No items of potential environmental concern were identified at the project site. Therefore, there are no required investigations or remediation needed, and no revisions to the IS-MND are warranted.

3. According to DTSC, there are currently no established standards within applicable statues and regulations that address environmental requirements for imported fill material.1 Sampling of backfill soil would not be required. Additionally, the property owner would be liable if contaminated soil were imported to the site. No revisions to the IS-MND are required in response to this comment.

4. Based on review of historical topographic maps from 1910 to 1964, the project site has not been used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the project site has not been used for weed abatement or related activities. As discussed within Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, compliance with existing DTSC regulations would reduce the risk of potential release of hazardous materials during demolition, dewatering, soil disturbance/grading, and construction. No revisions to the ISMND are required in response to this comment.

For General Plan Amendment 2022-001:

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is in conformance with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of the Salinas General Plan. 5 The proposed Amendment is consistent with Salinas General Plan Policies. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the existing designation for the project site and amend the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy Map to align with the proposed rezoning of the site to Residential High Density (15-24 units/acre). The Amendment would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the adjacent sites of the subject site. The proposed “Residential High Density (15-24 units/acre)” land designation for the project site is consistent with General Plan Goal H-1, by providing a range of housing opportunities to adequately address existing and projected needs to Salinas. The project also complies with General Plan Policy H-1.3, by identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage housing production for the existing and projected housing needs of the City. In addition, the project complies with General Plan Goal H-2, by maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods and housing stock.

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare.

The General Plan Amendment promotes the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare because the proposal will create additional housing units the City of Salinas.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
6 Attachments:

Reso Exhibit 1: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), dated March 2023
Reso Exhibit 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Reso Exhibit 3: Proposed General Plan Amendment 2022-001 and Rezone 2022- 001 Map

1 Preston Street Project
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901
Contact: Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
March 2023
Exhibit 1
1 Preston Street Project
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901
Contact: Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
March 2023
This page has been intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Project Title......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Project Sponsor............................................................................ 1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1

4. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

5. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

6. General Plan Designation.................................................................................................... 4

7. Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 4

8. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................... 6

9. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 6

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................11

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ..................................................................................................11

12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.....................................................................11

13. Determination...................................................................................................................12 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................13 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................13 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................19 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................21 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................31 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................39 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................43 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................49 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................57 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................67 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................71 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................77 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................79 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................81 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................95 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................97 16 Recreation.......................................................................................................................101 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................103 18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................113 19 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................117 ii
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................123 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................125 References..........................................................................................................................................129 Bibliography................................................................................................................................129 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................135 Response to Comments.............................................................................................................137 Tables
Table 1 R-M-3.6, R-H-2.1, FG, and F Zone Regulations....................................................................4 Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants..................................22 Table 3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................24 Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ..........................................27 Table 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day)............................................27 Table 6 2020 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption................................................................44 Table 7 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption...............................................................44 Table 8 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction...........................................................45 Table 9 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption...........................................46 Table 10 Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies ..............................................47 Table 11 SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector Targets...................................................................62 Table 12 SB 32 Locally Appropriate Project-Specific Threshold ......................................................63 Table 13 Combined Annual GHG Emissions ....................................................................................64 Table 14 Project Consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan................................................66 Table 15 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies................................................................78 Table 16 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage...........................................83 Table 17 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ............................................................................84 Table 18 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure...................................85 Table 19 Exterior Noise Standards...................................................................................................86 Table 20 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix.........................................................................86 Table 21 Nearest Sensitive Receivers to Site...................................................................................88 Table 22 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results- Short-Term...................................88 Table 23 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Increases.......................................................................92 Table 24 Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Services...........................................................................104 Table 25 Intersection Level of Service Impacts .............................................................................108 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses.......................................................................................................7 Figure 4 Existing Zoning Districts......................................................................................................8 Figure 5 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Code Designations......................................9 Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii
Table of Contents
Figure 6 Project Site Photos............................................................................................................15 Figure 7 Noise Level Measurement Locations................................................................................89 Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Energy Construction and Operational Energy Fuel Consumption Calculations Appendix D Transportation Analysis
Appendix E Cultural Resources Study
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
1 Preston Street Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Project Sponsor
Community Development Department
City of Salinas
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner
831-775-4259

4. Introduction
The 1 Preston Street Project, herein referred to as project or proposed project, would involve a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone (RZ) to modify the existing land use and zoning designations of the vacant 2.6-acre lot at 1 Preston Street. The proposed GPA would change the General Plan land use designation of Residential Medium Density (8-15 units/acre) to Residential High Density (15-20 15-24 units/acre). The RZ would change the zoning from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1). The purpose of the proposed GPA and RZ is to facilitate the production of high-density housing, consistent with the City’s General Plan. The GPA and RZ would affect 2.6 acres and would facilitate the development of up to approximately 76 housing units (anticipating a density bonus) across approximately 129,202 square feet (sf).

The project is intended to encourage the development of higher density development that would provide new housing that would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan. This project is being partially funded by Senate Bill (SB) 2 grant funding for the purpose of increasing housing production in the city.

5. Project Location
The proposed project is located at 1 Preston Street in Salinas, California. The project site is comprised of a single parcel, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 003-161-008-000.

Figure 1 shows the project’s regional location, and Figure 2 shows the project site. The site is currently undeveloped and contains natural vegetation, bare soil, and soil stockpiles, located to the west of the termination of Preston Street. Topographically, the site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. The site is bounded by existing residential and commercial development on its eastern border, and to the other three sides by an open space reclamation ditch adjacent to a creek fed by Main Canal.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
2 Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
4 6. General Plan Designation
The project site is designated Residential Medium Density (8-15 units/acre).

7. Zoning
The project site is currently zoned Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) with Focused Growth (FG2: North Main Street/Soledad Street) and Flood District (F) overlays. Surrounding sites are zoned Mixed Arterial Frontage (MAF), Residential High Density (R-H-2.1), Residential Low Density (R-L-5.5) Open Space (OS) and Parks (P). Regulations relating to the current and proposed zones are summarized in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the existing zoning districts on the site, and Figure 5 shows the proposed land use and zoning designations.

Table 1 R-M-3.6, R-H-2.1, FG, and F Zone Regulations
Zone Comparison
Purpose
Residential
Medium Density
(R-M-3.6)
 Provide appropriately located areas for single-family and medium density multifamily dwellings consistent with the general plan and with standards of public health and safety established by the Municipal Code
 Provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, inappropriate population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental impacts
 Promote development of affordable housing, housing for qualifying residents, and day care facilities by providing a density bonus for projects that meet state and/or city density bonus requirements
 Achieve design compatibility through the use of site development regulations and design standards;
 Protect adjoining lower density residential districts from excessive noise or loss of sun, light, quiet, and privacy resulting from proximity to higher density and multifamily dwellings  Provide sites for public and semipublic land uses needed to complement residential development or requiring a residential environment
 Ensure the provision of public services and facilities needed to accommodate planned population densities
 Encourage attractive and interesting residential streetscapes, dwelling units, and developments that are pedestrian-oriented and reflect traditional neighborhood design principles  Promote safe residential neighborhoods through the use of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) features in dwelling and site design  Provide for detached and attached single-family dwelling units on small lots where the minimum density is more than eight dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density is not more than twelve dwelling units per net acre without density bonus Residential High
Density (R-H-2.1)
 Provide appropriately located areas for high density and multifamily dwellings consistent with the general plan and with standards of public health and safety established by the Municipal Code
 Provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, inappropriate population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental impacts
 Promote development of affordable housing, housing for qualifying residents, and day care facilities by providing a density bonus for projects, which meet state and/or city density bonus requirements
 Achieve design compatibility through the use of site development regulations and design standards
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Zone Comparison
 Protect adjoining low and medium density residential districts from excessive noise or loss of sun, light, quiet, and privacy resulting from proximity to multifamily dwellings  Provide sites for public and semipublic land uses needed to complement residential development or requiring a residential environment
 Ensure the provision of public services and facilities needed to accommodate planned population densities;
 Encourage attractive and interesting residential streetscapes and high-density developments that are pedestrian-oriented and reflect traditional residential design principles;  Promote safe residential neighborhoods through the incorporation of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) features in dwelling and site design  Provide for high density multifamily dwelling units where the minimum density is more than fifteen dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density is not more than twenty dwelling units per net acre without density bonus
Focused Growth
Overlay Area 2
(FG-2)
 Create healthy neighborhood centers where residents of all economic and cultural backgrounds can live, work, walk, shop, exercise, and spend quality time outdoors  Increase pedestrian activity by creating neighborhood centers that are conveniently accessed by public transit
 Provide a mixture of uses to keep the neighborhoods active at all times of the day, not just morning and evening (as in the case of residential zones) or business hours (for commercial zones)
 Reduce vehicle trips and traffic by encouraging a mixture of uses and activities in one location  Encourage creative architecture and public design that communicate a neighborhood's locale, purpose, priorities, and personality to those who use the space  Create revitalized neighborhoods through infill development and redevelopment activities.

Flood Overlay (F)  Protect development from flood-related hazards  Protect public health, safety, and general welfare by regulation of development within floodprone areas  Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters
 Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may alter drainage patterns and/or increase flood damage
 Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas
 Control the cumulative effect of development in flood-prone areas that can increase flood heights and velocity, erosion, downstream impacts, and otherwise contribute to flood loss  Enhance water quality and groundwater recharge by identifying areas where resources can be placed for this purpose, such as floodplains or other areas, in accordance with the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

Residential Use Classifications
R-M-3.6 Accessory dwelling units, day care homes, small employee housing projects, home occupations, manufactured housing, small residential care facilities, detached single family dwellings R-H-2.1 Accessory dwelling units, day care homes, home occupations, small residential care facilities, domestic animals, and minor utilities
Residential Allowable Density
R-M-3.6 Minimum density: more than 8 dwelling units per net acre Maximum density: not more than 12 dwelling units per net acre without density bonus R-H-2.1 Minimum density: more than 15 dwelling units per net acre Maximum density: not more than 20 dwelling units per net acre without density bonus Notes: Salinas Zoning Code text and information is summarized in the table; for full text and regulations refer to the Salinas Zoning Code Source: Salinas Zoning Code
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
6 8. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is vacant but surrounded primarily by urban land uses. As shown in Figure 3, land uses surrounding the project site consist of Medium and Low-Density residential neighborhoods to the west and north of the site, as well as commercial uses to the east along North Main Street. The site is also bound to the north and west by an open space reclamation ditch owned by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. The reclamation ditch adjacent to the site is fed by water from Alisal Creek, Gabilan Creek, and Natividad Creek. A small passive use park owned by the City of Salinas is located between existing residential developments, roughly 245 feet from the project site on the other side of the reclamation ditch. Additionally, there are several undeveloped lots to the east of Highway 183 located approximately 0.2 and 0.4 mile from the project site. Agriculture uses are located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site.

9. Description of Project
The project consists of a GPA and RZ to modify the existing vacant 2.6-acre lot at 1 Preston Street from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1). The project does not involve construction or other physical changes. Because there are currently no development proposals, this Initial Study analyzes the maximum potential buildout of the site, using reasonable assumptions for construction, building height, and other design features. Depending on the final design of proposed development facilitated by the rezoning project, additional project-specific CEQA review may be required, as determined by the City upon receipt of a complete project-specific application. With full buildout and anticipating a density bonus, future development on the site may include the construction of up to 76 residential units over roughly 129,202 sf. Based on the existing maximum height allowable in the R-H-2.1 zone, future development would not exceed 45 feet and would be up to approximately four to five stories tall. Development would likely consist of buildings that are either row houses, condominiums, apartments, or other units, ranging in size from 400 square feet to 2,210 square feet, all which would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan description of the High Density Residential land use designation.

Development Regulations
Rezoning of the site would be subject to development regulations of the R-H-2.1 zoning district, as specified in Division 2 of the Salinas Zoning Code. The site is also within the Focused Growth FG-2 North Main Street/Soledad Street and Flood (F) overlay districts. Properties within overlay districts are subject to development regulations of the underlying zoning district except as specified in supplemental regulations (Salinas Municipal Code [SMC] Chapter 27, Article V).

Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
8 Figure 4 Existing Zoning Districts
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Figure 5 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Code Designations City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
10 Development of the site would be required to comply with all applicable development regulations, including the following key standards for the R-H-2.1 and overlay districts:
 Maximum building height of 45 feet without a Conditional Use Permit Minimum floor area ratio of 4.0
 Minimum usable open space of 500 square feet per DU
 Minimum one parking space per DU (includes studios) and two parking space per DU (includes two- and three-bedroom units); parking requirements may be reduced through approval of a site plan review or conditional use permit.

Utilities and Services
Police and Fire Services
The site is served by the City of Salinas Police Department and City of Salinas Fire Department.

Utility service for development on the site would be provided as described below.

Wastewater
Wastewater treatment service in the City of Salinas is provided by Monterey One Water (M1W), formerly the Monterey Water Pollution Control Agency. Wastewater from the City is transmitted to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant located in Marina, approximately five miles northwest of the City.

Water
Water supply for the site would be provided by California Water Service. Water supply serving the City is groundwater obtained from groundwater.

Storm Drainage
The site is not currently connected to the City’s stormwater drainage system. Development of the site would be required to comply with all applicable City and State regulations for stormwater control and mitigation.

Gas/Electricity
Electricity and natural gas service would be provided to the project by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) through Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) infrastructure.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicle access would be provided by a single driveway on Preston Street. The driveway would provide entry and exit to vehicular traffic. Future development would require the provision of approximately 152 parking spaces, which would be surface level and likely dispersed across the site.
1 1 Parking estimates are based on the Salinas Municipal Code, Article V Division 2, Section 37-50.360, Table 37-50.100, which list parking requirements for different unit types, ranging from one parking space per studio to three parking spaces for a four-bedroom unit. For the purposes of analysis, this document assumes a mix of unit types averaging to two parking spaces per dwelling units.

Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The project includes a GPA and RZ, which requires approval by the Salinas City Council. No other public agencies would be required to approve the project, though approvals may be required for future applications on the site, including from the following agencies:
 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD)
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
On May 20 and June 2, 2021, the City of Salinas mailed local tribes a Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letter via certified mail. Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation. Under SB 18, tribes have 90 days to respond. The City did not receive a request for formal consultation under AB 52. Copies of AB 52 correspondence for this project are included in Appendix C.

12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
■ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
Background
As addressed in CEQA analysis, aesthetics refers to visual environmental concerns as perceived from publicly accessible spaces, such as roadways, parks, and designated open spaces. Aesthetics or visual resources analysis is a process to assess the visible change and anticipated viewer response to that change. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have developed methodologies for conducting visual analysis that are used across the industry (FHWA 2015; BLM 1984; USFS 1996). These methods have been synthesized and used for this analysis.

While the conclusions of these assessments may seem entirely subjective, value is measured based on generally accepted measures of quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewer response, supported by consistent levels of agreement in research on visual quality evaluation (BLM 1984; FHWA 2015).

Modifications in a landscape that repeat basic elements found in that landscape are said to be in harmony with their surroundings; changes that do not harmonize often look out of place and can be found to form an unpleasant contrast when their effects are not evaluated adequately.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
14 Visual quality is a term that indicates the uniqueness or desirability of a visual resource, within a frame of reference that accounts for the uniqueness and “apparent concern for appearance” by concerned viewers (e.g., residents, visitors, jurisdictions) (USFS 1996). A well-established approach to visual analysis is used to evaluate visual quality, using the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity (FHWA 2015).
 Vividness describes the memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking patterns.
 Intactness refers to the visual integrity of the natural and human-built.  Unity indicates the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape as a whole.

Setting
The project site is currently vacant and contains minimal ground cover and vegetation primarily along the perimeter of the lot. Various existing trees are visible from the site including a row of mature trees visible from the eastern boundary which blocks views of the abutting commercial lot.

Additionally, in front of the trees, an existing concrete wall runs along the eastern boundary. Views in every direction include residential uses consisting of primarily single-family homes and a multifamily development to the north. On the eastern side of the site, opposite the reclamation ditch, an existing retaining wall runs along existing single-family homes. To both the north and south, power transmission poles and lines are visible from and run overhead of the site. A reclamation ditch bounds the site to the west and north. Photos of the site are shown in Figure 6.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Figure 6 Project Site Photos
Photograph 1: View from the project site facing the residences to the east.

Photograph 2: View from project site facing north.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
16 Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas are places from which expansive views of a highly valued landscape can be observed by the public. They can be enjoyed from elevated places in the landscape or from roadways or other public places where the views stretch far into the distance. Scenic vistas may be informally recognized, or officially designated by a public agency.

The Salinas General Plan notes that public views are available from US 101, and that these views are often the first impression of Salinas for visitors. The General Plan Program EIR notes that view corridors of the community from US 101 include “agricultural views in the northern portion of the planning area, views of the [Northridge and Westridge shopping centers and the Auto Center], long vistas into Carr Lake [to the east of the highway], and potential office and commercial development in the central portion of the city” (City of Salinas 2002a). The project site is approximately 0.2 mile southwest of US 101, but is not visible from the highway due to intervening structures. The project site is not proximate to shopping centers or Carr Lake.

Surrounding views around the site include existing residential developments, a reclamation ditch, and telephone lines. Scenic vistas are not available from any part of the site or nearby major roadways, such as State Route (SR) 183 or North Davis Road. The project would facilitate future new development on the site that would include 76 residential units. Based on the existing maximum height allowable in the R-M-3.6 zone, future development would not exceed 45 feet. Development would likely consist of buildings that are either row houses, condominiums, or apartments, consistent with the Salinas General Plan description of the High Density Residential land use designation. The site is distant enough from US 101 and SR 183 that future development would not obstruct views and would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. There would be no impact to scenic vistas.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no roadways in the City of Salinas that are officially designated for the state scenic highway system. However, SR 68 has been identified as potentially eligible for this designation between the Salinas River and US 101 in the City of Salinas. No other road segments in the City are listed as eligible for designation (Caltrans 2019). The site is more than 0.9 mile from SR 68. There is intervening topography, vegetation, and structures that prevent views of the site from this roadway.

Future development on the site would not exceed five stories in height; while this is generally taller than the two to three story homes and apartment buildings near the project site, development at the project site would not be visible from SR 68. In addition, there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on or visible from the project site. Therefore, substantial damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would not occur and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
c. Would the project, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is in an urbanized area where existing, surrounding uses are primarily residential and commercial. Buildout of the site as a 76-unit residential development, pursuant to the proposed RZ, would be consistent with existing surrounding residential uses. The City has established design guidelines in the Zoning Code (Section 37-30.140) intended to ensure buildings and dwellings are visually compatible with one another and with adjacent neighborhoods. Design guidelines include, but are not limited to, minimum sizes for lot depth, frontages, and setbacks on all sides; maximum building height and minimum distances between structures; and usable open space and landscaping. Design guidelines for these site features would be applicable to development that occurs under the proposed project, and future development of the site would not conflict with the City’s Zoning Code. Further, General Plan Policy CD-2.3, which requires infill development to be consistent with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods, would apply to future development of the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Zoning Code or regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Light can be categorized as either a stationary source or a moving source. Stationary sources of light include exterior parking lot and building security lighting, and moving sources of light include the headlights of vehicles driving on roadways near the site. Streetlights and other security lighting also serve as sources of light in the evening hours. Glare is defined as focused, intense light emanated directly from a source or indirectly when light reflects from a surface. Daytime glare is caused in large part by sunlight shining on highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Reflective surfaces area associated with buildings that have expanses of polished or glass surfaces, light-colored pavement, and the windshields of parked cars.

The surrounding area is largely developed with residential and commercial uses. Existing sources of glare include parked cars and from east/west facing windows that reflect the sun as it transitions. In areas where mature street trees exist, glare from parked cars is reduced somewhat. The project site is currently vacant and does not produce substantial sources of light. However, the project would facilitate new development that would introduce new sources of light at the site. Future residential uses on the site would result in higher levels of light and glare as existing surrounding residential uses due to the project’s proposed increased height and density. However, future development would be required to comply with SMC Section 37-50.480, which requires building and parking lot lighting be designed to generate the lowest possible amount of light while still providing for safety and security. Specifically, SMC Section 37-50.480 requires the following:
 Outdoor lighting shall employ cutoff optics that allows no light emitted above a horizontal plane running through the bottom of the fixture.
 Parking lots shall be illuminated to no more than an average maintained two and four-tenths footcandle at ground level with uniform lighting levels.  All building-mounted and freestanding parking lot lights (including the fixture, base, and pole) shall not exceed a maximum of 25 feet in height in all districts.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
18  Lighting adjacent to other property or public rights-of-way shall be shielded to reduce light trespass.
 No portion of the lamp (including the lens and reflectors) shall extend below the bottom edge of the lighting fixture nor be visible from an adjacent property or public right-of-way.  A point to point lighting plan showing horizontal illuminance in footcandles and demonstrating compliance with this section shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

New sources of glare would include windows and glass components associated with future development. Large expanses of light-colored walls could also generate glare if they are positioned so the sun shines on them for extended periods. SMC Section 37-30.280 details design standards to reduce glare from new residential development. Relative to glare, this includes the following:
 Restrictions on roof materials, including prohibiting highly reflective surfaces that create glare  Use of intermittent awnings and canopies to shield windows from direct sun that would create glare
 Prohibiting windows that have reflective glass
 Use of exterior color palettes that are compatible with adjacent structures and that are not highly reflective (e.g., bright white)
Finally, building windows would be required to comply with Title 24 Energy Standards by providing UV protection with polarization to reduce light and glare onto adjacent uses.

Conformance to the City’s outdoor lighting standards, design guidelines and ordinances, and Title 24 would keep development facilitated by the proposed RZ from creating a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
20 The project site is within a primarily developed urban area in the City of Salinas. There is no existing important farmland on or adjacent to the site; the site, as well as all surrounding properties, are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2016a). The site is not zoned or designated for agriculture, used for agricultural production, or under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2016a; Monterey County 2010). Residential developments bound the site to the north, south, and west. Commercial uses are located approximately 0.1 mile from the site along North Main Street. The nearest agricultural operations occur approximately 0.4 mile northeast of the site. As a result, future development pursuant to the proposed project would not convert farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning, or have the potential to result in the loss or conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is within a developed and urbanized area and there is no forest land on or adjacent to the site. The site, as well as neighboring properties, are not designated or zoned for forest preservation or timber harvesting. Therefore, future development pursuant to the proposed project would not conflict with zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or result in conversion of forest land. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),2 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.

Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between VOC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
 Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. 2 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this IS-MND.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
22  Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
 On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways.  Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD). As the local air quality management agency, the MBARD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the NCCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as nonattainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table 2, are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The NCCAB is designated a nonattainment area for the ozone and PM10 CAAQS (CARB 2021).

Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Suspended particulate
matter (PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).1 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2018 Air Quality Management
Because the NCCAB currently exceeds the state ozone and PM10 standards, MBARD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the CAAQS. In March 2017, MBARD adopted its most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to demonstrate a pathway for the region to make progress toward meeting the ozone CAAQS.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
Given that NOx emissions are a precursor to ozone formation, the AQMP includes measures to reduce NOx emissions that focus on on-road and off-road vehicles (MBARD 2017).

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds
MBARD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (MBARD 2008).

Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The proposed project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, and would therefore have a cumulatively considerable (significant) contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts, if it would result in either of the following (MBARD 2008; Duymich 2018):
 Population growth generated by the project would cause the population of Monterey County to exceed the population forecast for the appropriate five-year increment utilized in the AQMP; or3
 Construction and operational emissions of ozone precursors would exceed the significance thresholds established by MBARD, which are intended to set the allowable limit that a project can emit without impeding or conflicting with the AQMP’s goal of attainment ambient air quality standards.

Regional Criteria Pollutant Significance Thresholds
Table 3 presents MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for construction and operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. These represent levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the NCCAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the project would result in a significant impact if combined construction and operational emissions from development facilitated by the project would exceed the thresholds shown in Table 3.

The CO thresholds provided by MBARD as presented in Table 3 are designed to screen out from further analysis projects that would have a less than significant impact from CO emissions; projects that exceed these thresholds would not necessarily result in a CO hotspot.

Stringent vehicle emission standards in California have reduced the level of CO emissions generated by vehicles over time such that CO hotspots are rarely a concern, except for roadways with very high traffic volumes. The adjacent Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established a volume of 44,000 vehicles per hour as the level above which traffic volumes may contribute to a violation of CO standards (BAAQMD 2017). The NCCAB and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which is the air district immediately adjacent to MBARD to the north) are both in attainment for the federal and state standards for CO and have not reported exceedances of the CO standard at local monitoring stations for the last two decades (U.S. EPA 3 In Monterey County, consistency with population forecasts is based on comparing a project’s population with countywide forecasts to avoid confusion related to declining population forecasts for cities on the Monterey Peninsula (MBARD 2008).

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
24 2020a; BAAQMD 2017). Therefore, given the similar ambient air quality conditions for CO in both air basins, it is appropriate to use the BAAQMD threshold in this analysis. In the absence of an MBARD threshold that establishes a specific vehicle volume, the BAAQMD bright-line threshold for vehicle volume is applied in the following impact analysis. If the project exceeds the screening thresholds then the project would result in an exceedance of CO standards.

Table 3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Source Threshold of Significance
Construction Impacts
PM10 Direct 82 lbs/day1
Operational Impacts
VOC Direct and Indirect 137 lbs/day
NOX Direct and Indirect 137 lbs/day
PM10 On-site 82 lbs/day2
CO N/A LOS at intersection/road segment degrades from D or better to E or F or V/C ratio at intersection/road segment at LOS E or F increases by 0.05 or more or delay at intersection at LOS E or F increases by 10 seconds or more or reserve capacity at unsignalized intersection at LOS E or F decreases by 50 or more
Direct 550 lbs/day3
SOX, as SO2 Direct 150 lbs/day
lbs/day = pounds per day; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; VOC = volatile organic compounds (also referred to as ROG, or reactive organic gases); NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur; SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.
2 The District’s operational PM10 threshold of significance applies only to on-site emissions, such as project-related exceedances along on-site unpaved roads. These impacts are generally less than significant. For large development projects, almost all travel is on paved roads, and entrained road dust from vehicular travel can exceed the significance threshold. 3 Modeling should be undertaken to determine if the project would cause or substantially contribute (550 lbs/day) to exceedance of CO ambient air quality standards. If not, the project would not have a significant impact.

Source: MBARD 2008
Odors
The MBARD guidelines state that odor impacts would be significant if the project would result in the emission of substantial concentrations of pollutants that produce objectionable odors, causing injury, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons, or endangering the comfort, health, or safety of the public. If construction or operation of the project would emit pollutants associated with odors in substantial amounts, the analysis should assess the impact on existing or reasonably foreseeable sensitive receptors (MBARD 2008).

Toxic Air Contaminants
According to MBARD Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would site a sensitive receptor near an unregulated source of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions (e.g., diesel-fuel internal combustion engines, parking areas for diesel fueled heavy duty trucks and buses, gasoline stations, and dry cleaners) that would result in an exceedance of health risk public notification thresholds adopted by MBARD in Rule 1000. The Guidelines also set forth the following thresholds, which are the same as the public notification thresholds (MBARD 2008):

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
 The hazard index is greater than 1 for acute or chronic impacts  The cancer risk is greater than 10 in one million for long-term operational emissions or 1 per 100,000 population for temporary construction-related emissions Cumulative Impacts
MBARD requires an evaluation of cumulative ozone, CO, and PM10 impacts. Cumulative ozone impacts are evaluated based on the project’s consistency with the AQMP, while cumulative CO and PM10 impacts are evaluated the same as for project impacts, since air quality impacts are cumulative in nature. The cumulative CO hotspot analysis should account for cumulative traffic volumes to assess cumulative CO impacts.

Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., mid-rise apartments and a parking lot), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of the project as described under Project Description.

Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used onsite and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the amount of time equipment is in operation by emission factors. Construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on the default construction schedule and construction equipment list for a project of this type and size. Construction would occur over approximately 12 months, and site grading was assumed to be balanced the site (i.e., no net soil import or export). It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. This analysis assumes that the project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the project would comply with MBARD Rules 426 for architectural coatings (50 grams per liter for flat or non-flat coatings; and 100 grams per liter for traffic marking coatings).

Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. The default trip generation rates were used, which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10th edition trip generation rates. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A project could be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. MBARD uses growth forecasts provided by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to project population-related emissions, which are used in developing the AQMP for the NCCAB.

AMBAG is the regional planning agency for Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. The AQMP utilizes the 2014 Regional Growth Forecasts adopted by the AMBAG Board City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
26 in June 2014 as the basis for emissions forecasting and the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP (MBARD 2017).4
The AQMP population forecast for Monterey County is a population of 479,487 persons in 2030, an increase of 64,430 persons from a population of 415,057 persons in 2010. In 2020, the population of Monterey County was 432,325. (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). The project would involve the development of up to 76 dwelling units. The project is anticipated to provide housing units for 293 new residents in the city (refer to Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, for details on this calculation). This increase of 293 residents to the 432,325 people living in the County in 2021 would be within the AQMP’s projected 2030 population 479,487 persons for Monterey County. Therefore, the project would be within the population forecasts used in the AQMP.

Additionally, as described under checklist question (b) below, the project would not exceed MBARD’s construction or operational ozone precursor thresholds, as operational VOC and NOX emissions would be less than 137 pounds per day. For these reasons, the project would not generate air pollutant emissions that would impede or conflict with the AQMP’s goal of achieving attainment of the State ozone standards. As a result, the project would not conflict with the implementation of the AQMP. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The NCCAB is designated nonattainment for the ozone and PM10 CAAQS. The following subsections discuss emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and construction vehicles in addition to VOC emissions that would be released during the drying phase of architectural coating. Table 4 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during project construction. As shown therein, construction-related emissions would not exceed MBARD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant. 4 On June 13, 2018, AMBAG’s Board of Directors adopted the 2018 Regional Growth Forecast. However, the most recent AQMP was adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast; therefore, the 2014 forecasts are utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP. The 2022 Regional Growth Forecast was adopted in June 2022.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Year VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) - 2022* 107 15 17 <1 8 4
MBARD Thresholds N/A N/A NA N/A 821 NA
Threshold Exceeded? N/A N/A NA N/A No N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; VOC = volatile organic compounds (also referred to as ROG, or reactive organic gases); NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur; SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations and project design features. *Construction timeline is a conservative assumption based upon CalEEMod calculations.

See Appendix A for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions. 1 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating and cooking), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). Table 5 summarizes the project’s maximum daily operational emissions by emission source. As shown therein, operational emissions would not exceed MBARD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 4 <1 6 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 1 2 13 <1 3 1
Total 6 2 20 <1 <3 <1
MBARD Thresholds 137 137 550 150 82 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; VOC = volatile organic compounds (also referred to as ROG, or reactive organic gases); NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur; SO2 = sulfur dioxide Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations and project design features.

See Appendix A for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
28 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, most sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences (CARB 2005). Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include singlefamily residences, the nearest of which is adjacent to the project site’s southeastern boundary. The project also includes the siting of new sensitive receptors. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and TACs, which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state eighthour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).

As discussed under Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds above, a significant CO impact would occur if project-generated traffic would increase the traffic volume to 44,000 vehicles per hour or greater.

The project would generate 413 daily vehicle trips (Appendix A, Table 4.2). The most traveled intersection in or near the project site is the intersection of North Main Street and West Rossi Street. The intersection is approximately 965 feet south of the project site the existing intersection volume is approximately 33,426 average daily vehicles (City of Salinas 2020). Conservatively assuming that all project trips would travel through this intersection, the intersection volume would still not approach the threshold of 44,000 vehicle per hour (BAAQMD 2017). Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2020) and is therefore the focus of this analysis.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 12 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 12 months) is approximately three percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (BAAQMD 2017).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately nine days. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than one percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Common sources of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, truck distribution centers, freeways, and other major roadways (BAAQMD 2017). The project does not propose construction of gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, or roadways or other permitted or non-permitted sources of TAC or PM2.5. The project would not include any stationary sources of TACs or PM2.5that would expose both on-site and nearby off-site receptors to substantial TAC or PM2.5 emissions. Impacts from project operation would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. In addition, MBARD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials which would cause a nuisance or detriment to a considerable number of persons or to the public, except for odors from agricultural activities. Overall, project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (MBARD 2008). The project would not facilitate the development of any uses associated with objectionable odors. Operational odor emissions from the project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and trash receptacles and would be City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
30 comparable with those generated by existing residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (including odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ ■ □ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
32 Special-status species are those plants and animals: 1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service under the Federal Endangered Species Act; 2) listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act; 3) recognized as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4) afforded protection under Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); and 5) occurring on lists 1 and 2 of the CDFW California Rare Plant Rank system.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) biologists reviewed agency databases and relevant literature for baseline information on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources occurring or potentially occurring at the site and in the immediate surrounding area. The following sources were reviewed for background information:
 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021a)  Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2021b)  USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2021a)  USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2021b)
 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021)
 CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2021c)
 CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2021d) Rincon biologists conducted a review of applicable sources listed above for recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife taxa in the region. For this review, the search included all occurrences within the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing the site (Salinas), and the eight surrounding quadrangles. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil survey maps, geologic maps, and climatic data in the area were also examined. Rincon biologists additionally conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit to assess the habitat suitability for potential special-status species; map existing vegetation communities and any evident sensitive biological resources currently on site; note the presence of potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands; document any wildlife connectivity/movement features; and record all observations of plant and wildlife species within the project site.

Rincon biologists observed no special status plant and animal species during the reconnaissance survey. Of the 32 special status wildlife species evaluated, 3 species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur; Coast range newt (Taricha torosa), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Of the 45 special-status plant species evaluated, no species had a moderate or greater potential to occur. For further information, please refer to Appendix B.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plants
Construction activities could result in direct impacts to special-status plant species due to removal of individuals or crushing by heavy equipment. No special-status plants were incidentally observed Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
during the reconnaissance-level field survey, which was conducted in May 2021, within the spring blooming period when many species are identifiable. A total of 45 special-status plant species are known to occur in the region, but no special-status plants are expected to occur within the project site (Appendix B). The project would have no impact to special-status plants.

Special-Status Wildlife
No federal or State-listed or other special-status wildlife species were observed during the field survey. Of the 32 species evaluated, two species had a low potential to occur and three species had a moderate potential to occur. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and Monterey shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius) had a low potential to occur. Coast range newt (Taricha torosa), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) had a moderate potential to occur in the study area. For the purposes of this analysis, special-status species with low potential to occur will not be addressed further. No other special-status species are expected to occur in the project site. This is due to a lack of species-specific habitat requirements on site and the overall lack of suitable habitat such as natural vegetation communities or natural wetland habitats (e.g., marshes or seeps). The project site is relatively small and isolated by development from any natural habitats. As such, it does not support a prey base for larger predators/raptors and lacks connectivity to regional populations of special-status species.

Nesting Birds
The site contains nesting bird habitat (Appendix B). If nesting birds protected by the CFGC or MBTA are present on site during construction, direct effects could include injury or mortality from construction activity, or nest abandonment from construction noise, dust, and other project activities. The loss of an active nest would be a violation of the MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503 and 3513 and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required for the protection of all nesting avian species that have the potential to occur on or adjacent to the project site.

Coast Range Newt
Suitable aquatic breeding habitat for coast range newt is present adjacent to the project site within the unnamed reclamation ditch, and there is moderate potential for this species to occur within the project site (Appendix B). If coast range newts are present on site during construction, direct effects could include injury or mortality from construction activity. Loss of coast range newt individuals would be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code, and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required. With Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle has potential to occur along the adjacent ditch and within the nonnative grassland habitat (Appendix B). If western pond turtles are present on site during construction, direct effects could include injury or mortality from construction activity. Loss of western pond turtles would be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is required for the protection of western pond turtles. With Mitigation Measure BIO-3, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Western Burrowing Owl
Suitable western burrowing owl habitat is present in annual grassland, and ruderal habitat throughout the project site, within the nearby park, and along the adjacent reclamation ditch. Even City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
34 though there is a lack of burrows and a high degree of disturbance on site, nearby suitable habitat provided by adjacent open space and reclamation ditch increases the likelihood of western burrowing owl occupying the project site. Therefore, the species is determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project site (Appendix B). Impacts to western burrowing owls would be limited to construction activities that would directly affect an occupied burrow, such as (temporarily or permanently damaging or destroying the burrow), or construction activities that would disrupt active breeding or wintering owls within 500 feet of the site. Because of the lack of suitable burrows within the project site, direct impacts to active burrows are unlikely; however, burrows could still be on-site and owls could then be disturbed by construction noise and human activity and might abandon active burrows, including during breeding. Loss of western burrowing owls would be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code, and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is required for the protection of western burrowing owls. With Mitigation Measure BIO-4, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance
To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds or migratory species protected by the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the CFGC, activities related to the project site development, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 30). If ground disturbance, vegetation removal or heavy equipment work must begin within the nesting season, then the project applicant shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified biologist conducted a pre-construction nesting bird survey within 14 days of the start of construction. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the disturbance footprint and a 300-foot buffer.

If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be established to ensure nesting activity is not disturbed by construction activity, and shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the species’ known tolerances, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting has completed, and the young have fledged the nest, or the nest has become otherwise inactive. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

BIO-2 Coast Range Newt Survey and Avoidance
Pre-construction clearance surveys for coast range newt shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization), the surveys shall cover the entire disturbance footprint. A wildlife exclusion fence shall be placed along the top of bank of the adjacent ditch and maintained regularly to deter wildlife from entering the project area during construction. The project applicant shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified biologist conducted pre-construction clearance surveys for coast range newt no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
BIO-3 Western Pond Turtle Clearance Surveys and Avoidance Pre-construction clearance surveys for western pond turtle shall be conducted, the surveys shall cover the entire disturbance footprint. A wildlife exclusion fence shall be placed along the top of bank of the adjacent ditch and maintained regularly to deter wildlife from entering the project area during construction. The project applicant shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified biologist conducted pre-construction clearance surveys for western pond turtle no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction.

BIO-4 Western Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance
The project applicant shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified biologist conducted preconstruction clearance surveys prior to ground disturbance activities within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the project site, to confirm the presence/absence of active western burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW (2012). Clearance surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities. If no western burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If western burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction clearance surveys, the following measures shall apply:
 Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non-breeding season shall be implemented in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) minimization mitigation measures.
 If avoidance of western burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Western Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).

Significance After Mitigation
These measures would reduce impacts to nesting birds, coast range newt, western pond turtle, and western burrowing owls to less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No CDFW listed sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats are present within the project site. Any riparian habitat correlating with the adjacent reclamation ditch is outside the project limits. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities are expected. Scattered trees on the site do not constitute woodland. Ruderal vegetation cover, such as that found at the site, is not considered a sensitive natural community. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
36 c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No jurisdictional waters or wetlands exist within the project site and no direct impacts are anticipated. However, potentially jurisdictional nearby waterways. Future project activities could include grading, excavation, and removal of soil. However, pursuant to the City of Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50,180(h), a 100-foot setback area would be required from the top of the bank of the reclamation ditch in which no building or development could occur. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the City of Salinas General Plan Policies COS-17 and COS-18 which require developments to protect wetland and riparian areas through a 100-foot setback and implement a riparian/wetland habitat mitigation and management plan. Development activities may be considered within the setback area if a City Planner determines the encroachment to be minor and a Biotic Resources Study has determined that the proposed encroachment would not result in significant adverse impacts to the applicable creek or wetland because the implementation of alternative mitigation measures would achieve a comparable or better level of mitigation than the strict application of the 100-foot setback. As stated in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Appendix B), a 30-foot reduced setback would be appropriate for this site, as implementation of the SWPPP and erosion control measures (outlined below) would be equally as protective as a 100-foot setback.

Development of the project site would disturb more than one acre of land, which would mandate implementation of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-compliant Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent and retain stormwater runoff and to prevent soil erosion. Such BMPs could include checking vehicles daily for leaks, maintaining vehicles in good working order, providing spill kits, preparing a spill response plan, and sediment and erosion control measures (e.g., straw wattles, silt fending, check dams).

With mandatory implementation of the SWPPP and erosion control measures, a 30-foot reduced setback would be appropriate for the site and impacts to the potentially jurisdictional reclamation ditch would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife movement corridors are generally linear and consist of things such as coastlines, riverways and riparian zones. Additionally, some wildlife species may move through certain corridors in response to topography, such as a canyon through rugged mountains, or in response to its prey. The adjacent reclamation ditch is a potential wildlife movement corridor, as it passes through the urban landscape. It is not located within the boundaries of the project site. The additional development from the project would not affect wildlife utilizing the reclamation ditch as a movement corridor.

Additionally, as described under criterion (c) above, impacts to the off-site reclamation ditch would be less than significant. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Salinas General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes Policy COS-5.1, which aims to “protect and enhance creek, corridors, river corridors, the reclamation ditch, sloughs, wetlands, hillsides, and other potentially significant biological resources for their value in providing visual amenity, flood protection, habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities” (City of Salinas 2002b). The project would be consistent with Policy COS-5.1 as the project would adhere to applicable regulations and implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level, as described under criteria (a) through (d), above.

SMC Chapter 35 sets forth regulations and provisions pertaining to the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees and shrubs in Salinas. According to SMC Section 35.1, the City defines a heritage and/or landmark tree as 1) an oak tree that is at least 24 inches in diameter at two feet above the ground surface; or 2) an oak tree that is visually significant, historically significant, or exemplary in its species. SMC Section 35.18 prohibits the removal of heritage or landmark trees from City property unless approved by the City’s Public Works Director. Heritage and landmark trees do not occur within the project site, and development facilitated by the project would not result in the removal of heritage or landmark trees.

Pursuant to SMC Section 35.9, no person shall root-trim, trim, prune, plant, injure, remove, or interfere with any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, parkway or alley in the City without written permission from the City’s Public Works Director. No trees protected by this policy exist within the project site, therefore the proposed project would not conflict with the SMC, as applicable. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-1, through BIO-4 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).

A resource shall be considered historically significant if it:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21083.2[a], [b]).

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
40 City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

In August 2021, Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a cultural resources study (Appendix C Appendix E) for the project, which included: a cultural resources records search at the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University; a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search; a pedestrian field survey; and historical topographic map and aerial imagery review.

The NWIC records search was performed to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. Rincon also reviewed were the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and historical maps.

The NWIC records search identified 39 cultural resources studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, one of which evaluated portions of the project site. The NWIC search identified 16 previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which occur within the project site.

Rincon contacted NAHC on May 17, 2021, to request an SLF search of the project site. The NAHC emailed a response to the City on June 1, 2021, stating the SLF search was positive, meaning tribal heritage resources are noted in the project site vicinity. However, SLF searches are conducted by USGS quadrangle map, each of which covers an approximately 50- to 70-square-mile area, and the NAHC does not provide the specific location of tribal heritage resources. Therefore, a positive SLF search alone does not necessarily indicate the presence of tribal heritage resources within the immediate vicinity of the project site, as discussed further within Environmental Checklist Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the project site. Historical topographic maps from 1910 to 1964 depict the project site as undeveloped surrounded by a channelized creek to the west, south, and north (USGS 2021; NETR Online 2021). Historical topographic maps from 1970 to 1984 depict a structure added within the southeastern portion of the project site (NETR Online 2021). Aerial imagery from 1956 to 2005 depicts the project site as graded with a structure identified in the topographic maps, with housing development growing to the east and the water source as depicted on the topographic maps (NETR Online 2021). By 2009, the aerial imagery shows that the structure is no longer present, and vegetation has developed throughout the project site. Aerial imagery from 2012 depicts the project site in its current state, as graded with residential housing to the east and a channelized canal to the west, south, and north.

The background research and pedestrian field survey did not identify any historical resources within the project site. No built environment resources are present that may be impacted by the project; therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There would be no impact

NO IMPACT
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The site has been disturbed by the previous development and demolition of a structure from 1970 to 2009. Additionally, the project site was previously used as a staging area, and the City stated that the owner grants access to the project site which has led to further disturbance (City of Salinas 2021a).

Rincon conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site in August 2021. The pedestrian survey consisted of a series of transects oriented generally north-south and east-west, spaced no more than 15 meters apart across the project site. Areas of exposed ground were inspected for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features that indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances, such as burrows, and drainages were also visually inspected.

Ground visibility within the project site ranged from poor along the perimeter (less than five percent) to excellent (greater than 95 percent) within the center. No archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey.

Although the SLF search was returned with positive results, no archaeological resources were identified within the project site through the NWIC records search or Rincon’s pedestrian survey.

Given the negative results of Appendix C Appendix E, the project site is considered to have low archaeological sensitivity. However, it is possible that unanticipated archaeological deposits could be encountered and damaged during the ground-disturbing activities associated with future construction (such as grading and excavation), especially if those activities occur in less-disturbed buried sediments.

Consequently, mitigation is necessary to ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall immediately to evaluate the find pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work may be warranted, such as data recovery excavation (described below), to mitigate any significant impacts to significant resources. If the resource is of Native American origin, implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 may be required. Any reports required to document and/or evaluate unanticipated discoveries shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and submitted to the NWIC after completion.

Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout the remainder of ground disturbance activities.

If data recovery is required, a Phase III data recovery program plan shall be prepared in accordance with California Office of Historic Preservation’s (1990) Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b). The plan shall include a discussion of relevant research questions that can be addressed by the resource; methods used to gather data, including data from previous studies; City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
42 laboratory methods to analyze the data; an assessment of artifacts recovered and any corresponding field notes, graphics, and lab analyses; and results of investigations.

Cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of archaeological resources shall be determined using radiocarbon dating or other appropriate procedures. Lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. Upon completion of the work, all artifacts, other cultural remains, records, photographs, and other documentation shall be curated an appropriate curation facility to be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the City and interested tribal organizations. As applicable, the final Phase I Inventory, Phase II Testing and Evaluation, and/or Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to ground-disturbing activities.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts to unanticipated cultural resources would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The cultural resources records search did not identify cemeteries or archaeological resources containing human remains within the site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances, as would be required for future development within the site.

Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. In addition to being potential archaeological resources, human burials have specific provisions for treatment in PRC Section 5097. Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protects them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and establishes the NAHC as the entity to resolve any related disputes.

If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Compliance with PRC Section 5097.98 and State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure impacts to human remains are less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
Environmental Setting
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2021). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. Most of California’s electricity is generated in state with approximately 28 percent imported from the northwest and southwest in 2019; however, the state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a and 2021b). In addition, approximately 32 percent of California’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2021a). In 2018, Senate Bill 100 accelerated the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. Electricity and natural gas service would be provided to the project by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) through Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) infrastructure. Table 6 summarizes the electricity and natural gas consumption for Monterey County, in which the project site would be located, and for PG&E, as compared to statewide consumption.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
44 Table 6 2020 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption Energy Type
Monterey
County PG&E California
Proportion of PG&E
Consumption
Proportion of Statewide
Consumption1
Electricity (GWh) 2,434 78,519 279,510 3% 1%
Natural Gas
(millions of therms)
110 4,509 12,332 2% 1%
GWh = gigawatt-hours 1 For reference, the population of Monterey County (437,318 persons) is approximately 1.1 percent of the population of California (39,466,855 persons) (California Department of Finance 2021).

Source: CEC 2021c
Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation (CEC 2021d). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 12.6 billion gallons sold in 2020 (CEC 2021e).

Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.7 billion gallons sold in 2021e (CEC 2021e). Table 7 summarizes the petroleum fuel consumption for Monterey County in which the project site would be located, as compared to statewide consumption.

Table 7 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Fuel Type
Monterey County
(gallons)
California
(gallons)
Proportion of Statewide
Consumption1
Gasoline 141 12,572 1%
Diesel 22 1,744 1%
1 For reference, the population of Monterey County (437,318 persons) is approximately 1.1 percent of the population of California (39,466,855 persons) (California Department of Finance 2021).

Source: CEC 2021e
Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, and Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively. a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The project would use nonrenewable and renewable resources for construction and operation of the project. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections. The CalEEMod outputs for the air pollutant and GHG emissions modeling and default trip generation information from the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A) were used to estimate energy consumption associated with the project.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
Construction Energy Demand
The project would require site preparation and grading, including hauling material off-site; pavement and asphalt installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleumbased fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. As shown in Table 8, project construction would require approximately 7,967 gallons of gasoline and approximately 31,830 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction equipment used in each phase of construction is operating every day of construction.

Table 8 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction
Source
Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips N/A 31,830
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 7,967 N/A
N/A = not applicable
See Appendix A for energy calculation sheets.

Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and offroad diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the U.S. EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements such as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of costefficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Demand
Operation of the project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by customers and employees. Table 9 summarizes estimated operational energy consumption for the project. As shown therein, project operation would require approximately 48,355 gallons of gasoline and 9,371 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels, 0.32 GWh of electricity, and 11,637 U.S. therms of natural gas. Vehicle trips associated with future residents would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the project.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
46 Table 9 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption Source Energy Consumption1
Transportation Fuels
Gasoline 48,355 gallons 5,309 MMBtu
Diesel 9,371 gallons 1,194 MMBtu
Electricity 0.32 GWh 1,082 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 11,637 U.S. therms 637 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; GWh = gigawatt-hours 1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source See Appendix A for energy calculation sheets and Appendix A for CalEEMod output results for electricity and natural gas usage.

The project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. In addition, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Also, per CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used for the project would be high-efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential the inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater.

Furthermore, the project would increase housing density near to existing commercial uses and the Salinas Transit Center, which is less than one mile south of the project site. The Salinas Transit Center has Amtrak train services, Greyhound bus services, and Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) bus services. Both Amtrak and Greyhound have routes that travel across the California and the United States. The MST system has bus routes from Watsonville to King City. Several MST bus stops are also along North Main Street and West Rossi Street, which are within walking distance of the project site.

The bus stops are for routes 23, 29, 44, 49, and 95. These routes all have stops at the Salinas Transit Center. These factors would minimize the potential of the project to result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels.

Based on the estimated operational energy consumption, the energy efficiency requirements under Title 24, and the project site’s proximity to public transit, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Salinas has not adopted any renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. However, the City’s Conservation/Open Space Element in the General Plan contains policies which seek to encourage energy conservation (City of Salinas 2002b). As demonstrated in Table 10 the project would not conflict with the energy-related policies of the City’s General Plan. The project would be required to comply with the nonresidential mandatory measures in the 2019 CALGreen, which Environmental Checklist
Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
would reduce energy consumption compared to standard building practices. The project would also be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Project design features that would help meet these energy standards include low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, rooftop photovoltaic solar panels, and energyefficient lighting. Compliance with these regulations would avoid potential conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans. Therefore, the project would result in no impact.

Table 10 Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Policy Consistency
Policy COS-8.1: Enforce State Title
24 building construction
requirements
Consistent. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the latest iteration of Title 24 standards.

Policy COS-8.2: Apply standards
that promote energy conservation
in new and existing development
Consistent. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards code, which include energy conservation measures.

Policy COS-8.6: Encourage the
creation and retention of
neighborhood-level services (e.g.,
family medical offices, dry cleaners,
grocery stores, drug stores)
throughout the City in order to
reduce energy consumption
through automobile use.

Consistent. The project would facilitate the construction of up to 76 residential units on vacant parcels. The demolition of neighborhood services would not occur as part of the project. Neighborhood-level services in the vicinity of the sites include Chin Brothers Grocery & Liquor (on North Main Street), and the Salvation Army Thrift Store and Donation Center (on North Main Street). The project’s proximity to existing neighborhood-level services would reduce reliance on automobile energy consumption, in addition to nearby commercial services walkable from the project site.

Source: City of Salinas 2002b

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
48 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? □ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
50 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The site is not located within an identified earthquake fault zone as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2016b).

No known fault lines are located on the site. The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 14.6 miles northeast of the site. Thus, the likelihood of surface rupture occurring from active faulting at the site is remote.

While no faults have been mapped within the City of Salinas itself, the city and surrounding areas could still experience damage from strong seismic shaking and the site is in a zone of very high seismic hazards (City of Salinas 2002b). The City’s General Plan (2002) includes goals and policies meant to address earthquake risk in the city, including the following:

Goal S-4: Reduce the risk to the community from seismic activity, geologic conditions, flooding, and other natural hazards.

Policy S-4.1: During the review of development proposals, investigate and mitigate geologic and seismic hazards, or require that development be located away from such hazards, in order to preserve life and protect property.

Policy S-4.6: Ensure that all development and reuse/revitalization projects are developed in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code requirements.

Despite the potential for ground shaking, future development at the site would be required to meet the current CBC seismic-resistance standards that ensure new structures are engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration at any given location. Additionally, adherence to the General Plan policies described above would require new development to investigate and mitigate potential seismic hazards or to locate development away from these hazards. Compliance with all applicable provisions of state and local construction and designs standards, and implementation of the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the a given development project would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death due to strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction is a condition that occurs when unconsolidated, saturated soils change to a near-liquid state during ground shaking. The City primarily experiences earthquake hazards in the form of liquefaction, due to recently deposited sands and silts in areas of high groundwater levels (City of Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
Salinas 2002b). The liquefaction susceptibility is mapped as high for the site and mapped as low for surrounding areas (County of Monterey 2020). However, as required by Policy S-4.1, the future project applicant would investigate geologic and seismic hazards, including those related to liquefaction, and would be required to comply with recommendations included in the seismic report. Identification of geologic and seismic hazards would be confirmed by the City during review of development proposals. Additionally, the CBC includes specific requirements to address liquefaction hazards, including but not limited to over excavation, recompaction, and/or replacement of fill to minimize liquefaction potential. Required geotechnical investigations performed for future proposed development at the project site would also make site-specific design recommendations to minimize impacts related to liquefaction. Future development at the site would be required to conform to the CBC (as amended at the time of permit approval) as required by law. Compliance with the CBC would result in less than significant impacts related to seismicrelated ground failure and liquefaction.

The site is relatively flat and is not located within a mapped landslide area; therefore, there is a very low potential for landslides on the site (County of Monterey 2020). Additionally, with modern construction and adherence to the geology and soil provisions of the CBC, which sets forth seismic design standards (Chapters 16, 18) and geohazard study requirements (Chapter 18), impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The site is currently undeveloped and generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. However, the project would facilitate future higher-density housing development at the site. Construction activities associated with future development could result in erosion or loss of topsoil.

The grading and excavation phase, when soils are exposed, has the highest potential for erosion.

However, new development would be required to comply with Salinas Zoning Code Section 29- 15(d), Best Management Practices for Construction Sites, which requires all construction to comply with the City’s Standards to Control Excavations, Cuts, Fills, Clearing, Grading, Erosion and Sediments. All projects requiring a grading permit are required to submit to the City a SWPPP for control of erosion and stormwater runoff quality during construction. These standards provide direction concerning erosion control, including keeping debris and dirt out of the city’s storm drain system, including the reclamation ditch, during construction, requiring submittal of a SWPPP, and requiring low impact development strategies or structural treatment control BMPs.

Additionally, future development would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Environmental Checklist Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality describes how coverage under the NPDES Permit would require implementation of a SWPPP and various BMPs to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during site construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and identified BMPs and with appropriate sections of the Salinas Grading Code of Ordinances would ensure impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
52 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils have the potential to cause damage to structures through soil movement as the soil changes volume in response to changes in the water content. The site is primarily underlain by Clear Lake clay, Xerorthents loamy which range from moderate to very high expansive soils, as it has a moderate to very high shrink-swell potential (NRCS 2020). The City of Salinas Code of Ordinances requires a soils report for all development projects that investigates soil expansion potential and proposes mitigation for critically expansive soils (Section 31-402.5[b]). Potential mitigation for expansive soils could include but is not limited to over excavation, recompaction, and/or replacement of fill to minimize liquefaction potential. Future soil investigations performed for development at the project site would also make-site specific design recommendations to minimize impacts related to expansive soils. Project construction would be required comply with the CBC and City of Salinas Code of Ordinances, as applicable, which would ensure construction on potentially expansive soils is designed to withstand potential soil movement. Therefore, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soil, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Future development facilitated by the proposed rezoning would be connected to the local wastewater treatment systems and would not require the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The paleontological sensitivities of the geologic units underlying the project site were evaluated to determine if development facilitated project could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of an online paleontological locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within geologic units mapped within the project sites. Fossil collections records from the Paleobiology Database and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database were reviewed for known fossil localities in Monterey County (Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). Based on the available information contained within existing scientific literature and the UCMP database, paleontological sensitivities were assigned to the geologic units underlying the site. The potential for impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has developed a system for assessing paleontological sensitivity and describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (SVP 2010). This system is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present.

The project site is situated within the Salinas Valley in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, one of eleven major provinces in the California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Salinas Valley is Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
bounded by the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountain ranges to the east and west, respectively (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb 1990). The project site is entirely mapped at the surface by a single geologic unit: Quaternary young (middle to late Holocene) alluvium (Qa), which generally consists of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated alluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay of valley areas and floodplains (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Although not mapped within the project boundary, exposures of Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium (Qoa) are prevalent throughout the Salinas Valley and underlie younger alluvial sediments at unknown depths within the project site (Dibblee and Minch 2007). The nearest exposure of Quaternary old alluvium is mapped approximately 100 feet northeast of the project site. Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium consists of dissected, weakly to moderately indurated alluvial gravel, sand, and clay (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Middle to late Holocene sedimentary deposits within the project site (e.g., Qa) are typically too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources and are determined to have a low paleontological sensitivity at the surface. However, older alluvial deposits are mapped at the surface not far from the project site, and the stratigraphic setting in the vicinity is indicative that Pleistocene (i.e., Qoa) units underlie the middle to late Holocene unit mapped at the surface at potentially shallow depths (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Quaternary old deposits have a well-documented record of abundant and diverse vertebrate fauna throughout California, including Monterey County (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). A search of the paleontological locality records at the UCMP resulted in 17 fossil localities, which yielded specimens of horse (Equus), ground sloth (Glossotherium), bison (Bison), and camel (Camelops), from Pleistocene-aged sediments in Monterey County (Paleobiology Database 2020; UCMP 2020). Therefore, in accordance with SVP guidelines, Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium (Qoa) is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity.

Accurately assessing the boundaries between middle to late Holocene (i.e., Qa) and Pleistocene (i.e., Qoa) units is generally not possible without site-specific stratigraphic data, some form of radiometric dating, or fossil analysis. The depths at which these units become old enough to yield fossils is highly variable, but generally does not occur at depths of less than five feet based on the proximity of geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Qoa) mapped near the project site (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Because the topography of the project site is generally flat, and no underground structures are envisioned, minimal grading and subsurface excavation would be required. The project site is in an urbanized area and has been previously developed. Given the nature of the proposed improvements and existing site conditions, project-related ground disturbance (i.e., excavations) is not anticipated to include ground disturbance greater than five feet in previously undisturbed areas and is thus unlikely to impact fossiliferous deposits. Although project implementation is not expected to uncover paleontological resources, there is still a possibility for such resources to be uncovered exists, and therefore there is potential the project could destroy a unique paleontological resource which would be potentially significant cannot be excluded.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the case of unanticipated fossil discoveries. This measure would apply to all phases of project construction and would reduce the potential for impacts to unanticipated fossils present on site by providing for the recovery, identification, and curation of paleontological resources.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
54 Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation For grading or excavation exceeding five feet in depth, the City of Salinas shall require the following:

Qualified Paleontologist. The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist prior to excavations that will exceed five feet in depth. The Qualified Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. A qualified professional paleontologist is defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards (SVP 2010) as an individual preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least two years (SVP 2010).

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) of depths greater than five feet within native (previously undisturbed) sediments. Ground-disturbing activities that impact artificial fill (previously disturbed) sediments only do not require paleontological monitoring. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Salinas. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely.

Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist at that time.

In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources:
a. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the monitor and/or lead paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically-sensitive Quaternary old alluvial deposits.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
b. Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the UCMP), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Paleontologist.

Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City of Salinas Community Development Department. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that impacts to unanticipated paleontological resources would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
56 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. Most radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014).5 Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, 5 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2014) Fifth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
58 respectively, primarily due to human activity (U.S. EPA 2020b). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018).

Regulatory Framework
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017).

Other relevant state laws and regulations include:
 SB 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) was assigned targets of a 3 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 6 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2035. AMBAG adopted the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (AMBAG MTP/SCS) in June 2022, which meets the requirements of SB 375.
 SB 100: Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.  California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24): The California Building Standards Code consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24 standards. Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. Part 12 is the CALGreen, which includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures.

Methodology
GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, with the assumptions described under Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, in addition to the following:
 Amortization of Construction Emissions. In lieu of guidance from MBARD to address construction GHG emissions, guidance from South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) is used for this analysis. Per SCAQMD recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008).  Service Population. The project’s per person GHG emissions were calculated by dividing total GHG emissions by the project’s service population (residents). Average household size varies throughout California; therefore, the service population attributed to this project is based on average household size data specific to Salinas. The average household size in the City of Salinas is 3.85 persons per household (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021). As such, the project would potentially add an estimated 293 residents (76 units x 3.85 persons per unit) to the City.

Significance Thresholds
Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly.

However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.

This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP; 2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. While the City has begun the process of preparing a Climate Action Plan, the City has not yet adopted a Climate Action Plan that can be used to evaluate the significance of project-level emissions. Additionally, MBARD has not provided quantitative thresholds that a lead agency within the NCCAB may use to evaluate GHG impacts associated with land use projects.

In the absence of local guidance, MBARD encourages lead agencies to consider a variety of metrics for evaluating GHG emissions and related mitigation measures as they best apply to the specific project (MBARD 2017). Starting in 2012, MBARD recommended potentially using the GHG City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
60 thresholds for land use projects adopted by the adjacent San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD).

The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes a bright-line threshold and an efficiency threshold. However, per a 2021 memorandum published by SLOAPCD to address interim CEQA GHG guidance, the Air District designed its thresholds to achieve consistency with the statewide 2020 GHG reduction target set by AB 32 and has not yet updated the thresholds to achieve consistency with the statewide 2030 GHG reduction target set by SB 32 (SLOAPCD 2021). Thus, the bright-line threshold and efficiency threshold developed by SLOAPCD are not recommended for projects operational beyond 2020. Instead, the interim guidance from SLOAPCD recommends the following approaches:

Consistency with a Qualified Climate Action Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183 and 15183.5.

No-net increase in GHG emissions relative to baseline conditions.

The Lead Agency adopts a defensible CEQA GHG threshold that meets local GHG emission targets with best management practices (e.g., the GHG threshold for Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District) or develop a SB 32 GHG bright-line threshold.

The first and second interim guidance approaches would not be applicable since the City of Salinas has not adopted a qualified CAP and the project would result in an increase in GHG emissions. Thus, this analysis evaluates the project’s impact and consistency with statewide emissions targets using a locally appropriate, 2030 project-specific efficiency threshold as described below.

Project-Specific Efficiency Threshold
Efficiency thresholds are quantitative thresholds based on a measurement of GHG efficiency for a given project, regardless of the amount of mass emissions. Efficiency thresholds identify the emission level below which new development would not interfere with attainment of statewide GHG reduction targets. A project that attains such an efficiency target, with or without mitigation, would result in less than significant GHG emissions (AEP 2016). A locally appropriate 2030 projectspecific threshold is derived from CARB’s recommendations in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan).

The State has codified a target of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030 (SB 32) and has developed the 2017 Scoping Plan to demonstrate how the State will achieve the 2030 target and make substantial progress toward the 2050 goal of an 80 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels set by EO S-3-05. In EO B-55-18, which identifies a new goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and supersedes the goal established by EO S-3-05, CARB has been tasked with including a pathway toward the EO B-55-18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update.

With the release of the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB recognized the need to balance population growth with emissions reductions and in doing so, provided a new local plan level methodology for target setting that provides consistency with state GHG reduction goals using per capita efficiency thresholds. A project-specific efficiency threshold can be calculated by dividing statewide GHG emissions by the sum of statewide jobs and residents. However, not all statewide emission sources would be impacted by the proposed land use (the project would facilitate residential development and no other land use types such as agriculture or industrial). Accordingly, consistent with the concerns raised in the Golden Door Properties v. County of San Diego (2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Newhall Ranch” case, 2015) Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
decisions regarding the correlation between state and local conditions, the 2030 statewide inventory target was modified with substantial evidence provided to establish a locally appropriate, evidence-based, mixed-use project-specific threshold consistent with the SB 32 target.

To develop the project-specific efficiency threshold, land use areas identified in the City of Salinas General Plan were first evaluated to determine emissions sectors that are present and would be directly affected by potential land-use changes. A description of major sources of emissions that are included in the 2017 Scoping Plan emissions sectors and representative sources in Salinas are shown in Table 11.

According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, agricultural lands exist within the City; however, Agricultural Sector source emissions would not be directly impacted by the proposed land uses.

Similarly, industrial lands exist within the City; however, the Industrial Sector source emissions as specified in the 2017 Scoping Plan (i.e., oil, gas, and hydrogen production; refineries; general fuel use; and mining operations) do not occur substantially on industrial lands and would not be directly impacted by the proposed land uses.6 Therefore, the agricultural and industrial emissions sectors were removed from the State 2030 emissions forecast to retain a more conservative locally appropriate target.

After removing Agricultural and Industrial emissions, the remaining emissions sectors with sources within the City of Salinas planning area were then summed to create a locally appropriate emissions total for a mixed-use project in Salinas, as shown in Table 11. This locally appropriate emissions total was divided by the statewide 2030 service person population to determine a locally appropriate, project-level threshold of 2.4 MT CO2e per service population that is consistent with SB 32 targets, as shown in Table 12.

While State and regional regulators of energy and transportation systems, along with the State’s Cap-and-Trade program, are designed to be set at limits to achieve most of the reductions needed to hit the State’s long-term targets, local governments can do their fair share toward meeting the State’s targets by siting and approving projects that accommodate planned population growth and projects that are GHG-efficient. The AEP Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG analyses evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory of state climate change legislation and assess their “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in available plans, legislation, or Eos (AEP 2016). Consistent with AEP Climate Change Committee recommendations, GHG impacts are analyzed in terms of whether the anticipated development would impede “substantial progress” toward meeting the reduction goal identified in SB 32 and EO B-55-18. As SB 32 is considered an interim target toward meeting the 2045 State goal, consistency with SB 32 would be considered contributing substantial progress toward meeting the State’s longterm 2045 goals. Avoiding interference with, and making substantial progress toward, these longterm State targets is important because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets intended to stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences, as noted in the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017).
6 Light and general industrial land uses are present in Salinas; however, these land uses are mostly dedicated to agricultural product processing.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
62 Table 11 SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector Targets GHG Emissions Sector1
2030 State
Emissions Target
(MMT)1
Locally
Appropriate2
Project
Specific Major Sources3
Residential and
Commercial
38 Yes Yes Natural gas end uses, including space and
water heating of buildings
Electric Power 53 Yes Yes Electricity uses, including lighting, appliances, machinery and heating
High Global Warming
Potential
11 Yes Yes Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from power stations, HFCs from refrigerants and air conditioning4
Recycling and Waste 8 Yes Yes Waste generated by residential, commercial, and other facilities
Transportation 103 Yes Yes Passenger, heavy duty, and other vehicle emissions
Industrial 83 No No Oil, gas, and hydrogen production, refineries, general fuel use, and mining operations do not
occur substantially within the County
Agriculture 24 No No Enteric fermentation, crop residue burning, and manure management do not occur
substantially within the County
Cap and Trade
Reductions
-60 No No Reductions from facilities emitting more than 10,000 MT CO2e per year6
Scoping Plan Target
(All Sectors)
260 No No All emissions sectors
Locally Inapplicable
Sector (Industrial)
-83 No No Oil, gas, and hydrogen production, refineries, general fuel use, and mining operations5
Locally Inapplicable
Sector (Agriculture)
-24 No No Enteric fermentation, crop residue burning,
and manure management5
2030 Locally Applicable
Emissions Sectors
153 Yes Yes Emissions applicable to the local planning
area
MMT = million metric tons
1 All State targets in MMT CO2e. See the 2017 Scoping Plan, page 31 for sector details (CARB 2017). 2 Locally appropriate is defined as having significant emissions in Scoping Plan Categorization categories within the City of Salinas General Plan land use areas.
3 See CARB GHG Emissions Inventory Scoping Plan Categorization for details, available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
4 SF6 is used primarily as an insulator in electrical substations while HFCs can be found in many residential and commercial refrigeration and air conditioning units. HFCs are in the process of being phased out through 2036 in most developed countries. 5 The majority of this sector is not applicable to the local planning area, and any potential applicable subsectors cannot be disaggregated due to CARB accounting methods. Therefore, the entire sector has been removed to ensure a more conservative target. 6 Cap-and-Trade is excluded as reductions will occur independent of local project land use decisions and are therefore not locally appropriate.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
Table 12 SB 32 Locally Appropriate Project-Specific Threshold Threshold Source Threshold Determination Variable
2017 Scoping Plan California 2030 Population (persons)1 41,028,749 California 2030 Employment Projection (persons)2 23,459,500 Service Population (Residents + Employees) (persons)3 64,488,249 Locally Appropriate
Project Threshold
2030 Locally Appropriate Emissions Sectors (MT CO2e) 153,000,0004 2030 California Service Population (persons) 64,488,249 2030 Service Person Target (MT CO2e per Service Person) 2.4 1 California Department of Finance 2020. Report P-1A: Total Population Projections, 2010-2060 2 Average of employment range projections under implementation scenario. See CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, page 55 (CARB 2017). 3 This calculation double-counts residents of California who are employed in California; however, this results in a conservative calculation of the service person target as it results in a lower calculated target. 4 See Table 11
Furthermore, as discussed below, this report also contains an analysis of how the project complies with other regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. For this project, the most directly applicable adopted regulatory plans to reduce GHG emissions are AMBAG’s 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/ SCS), Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 32, EO B-55-18, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the City’s General Plan. a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions. This analysis considers the combined impact of GHG emissions from both construction and operation.

Calculations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects.

Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the use of heavy construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export. Total construction emissions would be 354 MT CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period per industry standard, construction-related GHG emissions would be equivalent to 12 MT CO2e per year.

Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. As shown in Table 13, annual operational emissions generated by the proposed project combined with amortized construction emissions would total approximately 447 MT CO2e per year in 2030, or approximately 1.5 MT CO2e per service person per year, which would not exceed the locally applicable, project-specific threshold of 2.4 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
64 Table 13 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Construction 12
Operational
Area 1
Energy 55
Mobile 354
Solid Waste 18
Water 7
Total Emissions 447
Service Population (Residents) 293
Emissions per Service Person 1.5
Threshold (MT CO2e per service population per year) 2.4 Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the southern California region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan, AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS, and local policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project’s consistency with these plans is discussed in the following subsections.
2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the proposed project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation.

The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. The project would be served by 3CE for electricity and this utility provider is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. The project would be located in an area served by the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) bus service, which provides stops from Watsonville to King City. There are bus stops along North Main Street and West Rossi Street, which are within walking distance of the project site. The bus stops are for routes 23, 29, 44, 49, and 95. These routes all have stops at the Salinas Transit Center, which provides Amtrak train services, and Greyhound bus services. The proximity to these public transit services would encourage future residents to reduce their VMT and associated fossil fuel usage. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the Senate Bill 1383, which requires that all residents and business compost organic waste (e.g., food, landscape material, and paper products) into organic waste collection services to Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
divert organic waste from being disposed of in landfills. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Consistency with the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS
AMBAG adopted an updated MTP/SCS, Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045, in June 2022. AMBAG prepares a long-range transportation plan every four years consistent with state and federal laws.

The MTP/SCS is reflective of legislation SB 375 described in the Regulatory Setting above, to focus land use development around high-quality transit corridors as a means to reduce passenger vehicle GHG emissions.

AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS contains three goals that would apply to the proposed project:
 Access and Mobility. Provide convenient, accessible, and reliable travel options while maximizing productivity for all people and goods in the region  Economic Vitality. Raise the region’s standard of living by enhancing the performance of the transportation system.
 Environment. Promote environmental sustainability and protect the natural environment.  Healthy Communities. Protect the health of our residents; foster efficient development patterns that optimize travel, housing, and employment choices and encourage active transportation.
 Social Equity. Provide an equitable level of transportation services to all segments of the population.
 System Preservation and Safety. Preserve and ensure a sustainable and safe regional transportation system.

The project would facilitate future residential development of up to 76 dwelling units near existing residences, commercial uses, and public transit. The Salinas Transit Center is one mile south of the site, within walking or biking distance. Along North Main Street and West Rossi Street (which are within 0.2 to 0.4 mile of the site, respectively) are the MST bus stops for routes 23, 29, 44, 49, and

95. Placing the project within proximity to the transit center would provide residents reliable travel options and encourage the use of public transit. The project is also less than one mile north of the Central City District and downtown Salinas. Thus, the site is close to existing employment/office buildings, and commercial development. As a result, public transit and alternative transportation modes such as bicycling and walking would be viable means of transportation, which would also reduce VMT. Therefore, the project would encourage new housing and an efficient use of land near alternate modes of transportation and would therefore be consistent with AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS.

Consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan
As noted in the discussion of Regulatory Framework above, while the City of Salinas General Plan does not contain specific GHG reduction policies, it does contain policies that encourage higher density development, energy efficiency, and multimodal transportation, that would reduce GHG emissions from new development. Table 14 summarizes the project’s consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan goals and policies indirectly related to GHG emissions.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
66 Table 14 Project Consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan Policy Consistency
Policy H-1.8: Encourage the development of higher
density apartments, townhouses and condominiums
served by major transit corridors or other nonautomotive transport.

Consistent. The project would allow for the construction of higher-density housing on the project site of up to 76 units on the 2.6-acre site, in proximity to the Salinas Transit Center, which is less than one mile south of the project site. The Salinas Transit Center has Amtrak train services, Greyhound bus services, and the MST bus services. Both Amtrak and Greyhound have routes that travel across the California and the United States. The MST system has bus routes from
Watsonville to King City.

Policy CD-3.8: Promote the use of alternative modes of
transportation, including bus, rail, bicycling and walking.

Policy COS-8.5: Encourage land use arrangements and
densities that facilitate the use of energy efficient public transit.

Consistent. The project would encourage the use of existing nearby public transit and would promote the use of
alternative modes of transportation, due to the proximity to the Salinas Transit Center and MST bus stops. Therefore, the project would be consistent with these policies.

Policy COS-8.1: Enforce State Title 24 building
construction requirements.

Policy COS-8.2: Apply standards that promote energy
conservation in new and existing development.

Consistent. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, which promote energy conservation in new buildings. Therefore, the project would comply with these policies.

Source: City of Salinas 2002
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan, AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS, and the City of Salinas General Plan. Consistency with the above plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies would reduce the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ ■
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
68 As a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the California Health and Safety Code. DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law to regulate hazardous wastes.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection with CalEPA consolidates the information submitted by these agencies into a master list, referred to as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is distributed to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. The Cortese List is used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by DTSC, SWRCB, and CalRecycle.

If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it is considered a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific criteria in Title 22 of the CCR. Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction. a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The proposed project would rezone the site to facilitate higher density residential development, including up to 76 new residential units. Future construction activities may include the temporary transport, storage, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, impacted groundwater, or contaminated soils. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. However, the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. Hazardous materials would be required to be transported under U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations (USDOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations), which stipulate the types of containers, labeling, and other restrictions to be used in the movement of such material on interstate highways. In addition, the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated through RCRA. DTSC is responsible for implementing the RCRA program, as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, including the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California H&SC Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5).

DTSC regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC also oversees permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs to ensure that hazardous waste managers follow federal and State requirements and other laws that affect hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the risk of potential release of hazardous materials during demolition, dewatering, soil disturbance/grading, and construction.

The project would facilitate future construction of residential units on the site. Residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. Operation of the project would not involve the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials other than those typically used for household cleaning, maintenance, and landscaping. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest schools are Mount Toro High School and El Puente School located approximately 0.55 mile east of the site off Sherwood Drive.

There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The following databases were checked, pursuant to Government Code Section 95962.5, on June 11, 2021, for known hazardous materials contamination at parcels within a 0.25 radius of the site:
 Hazardous Waste and Substances site “Cortese” list (65962.5[a])  GeoTracker: List of LUST Sites (65962.5[c][1])
 List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board (65962.5[c][2])  List of “active” Cease and Desist Order and Cleanup Abatement Order sites (65962.5[c][3]) The project site is not listed on any of these databases, which were compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. Both Envirostor and Geotracker identified several closed cleanup sites within 0.25 mile of the project site. The cleanup action reports and remediation status of these sites indicates that there is no potential for hazardous materials to impact the project site. Accordingly, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The site is not located within a public airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport. The Salinas Municipal Airport (SMS) is the closest airport to the site and there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the site. SMS is a general aviation facility occupying 763 acres, with two runways serving single- and twin-engine aircraft and helicopters, as well as an increasing number of turbo-propeller and turbine engine business jets. The airport is located approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the site, and the site is located outside of the Airport Influence Area and Runway Protection Zone (Salinas Community Development Department 1982). Therefore, no impact related to airport safety would occur.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
70 NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would facilitate the development of high-density housing on the site. The site is adequately served by local roadways, and the future development of the site would not require the construction of new roadways or obstruct existing roadways. In addition, local requirements and review procedures would ensure that new development facilitated by the project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation. For example, new development is required to pay development fees, which would ensure adequate fire and police protection facilities are provided to maintain response time goals. The building permit application for future development on the site would be reviewed by the Department of Public Works and the Salinas Fire and Police Departments for potential problems with emergency access within the City. Therefore, the project would not result in buildings that would block emergency response or evacuation routes or interfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Salinas and is primarily surrounded by existing urban development. Furthermore, the site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or an area of local responsibility (CAL FIRE 2007). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? □ □ ■ □
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
72 The federal Clean Water Act establishes the framework for regulating discharges to Waters of the United States to protect their beneficial uses. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act regulates water quality within California and establishes the authority of the SWRCB and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB requires construction projects to provide careful management and close monitoring of runoff during construction, including on-site erosion protection, sediment management, and prevention of non-storm discharges. The SWRCB and RWQCBs issue NPDES permits to regulate specific discharges. The NPDES Construction General Permit regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites that disturb more than one acre of land.

The site overlies the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB), which extends from north of Marina and Salinas to the Monterey County/San Luis Obispo County line throughout the Salinas Valley. The site is within the 180-400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the SVGB, which covers 89,700 acres (140 square miles) of the SVGB. Groundwater is primarily recharged naturally through infiltration of surface water, deep percolation of excess irrigation water, and deep percolation of infiltrating precipitation.

Recharge of the aquifer is limited due to the permeability of the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and there are no mapped springs, seeps, or discharge to streams identified in the Subbasin (SVBGSA 2020). a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Excavation, grading, and other activities associated with construction facilitated by the proposed project would result in soil disturbance that could cause water quality violations through potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation of receiving water bodies. Construction activities could also cause water quality violations in the event of an accidental fuel or hazardous materials leak or spill.

If precautions are not taken to contain contaminants, construction activities could result in contaminated stormwater runoff that could enter nearby waterbodies. Construction activities resulting in ground disturbance of one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which must be prepared before construction begins. The SWPPP includes specifications for BMPs implemented during project construction to minimize or prevent sediment or pollutants in stormwater runoff.

Construction facilitated by the project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. In addition, the contractor would be required to implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP to prevent construction pollution via stormwater and minimize erosion and sedimentation into waterways as a result of construction. Additionally, development facilitated the project would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. Development facilitated by the project would be required to include such facilities in the final design plans.

Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit would ensure the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The site overlies the SVGB, 180-400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the subbasin, which was adopted in January 2020. The GSP describes current groundwater conditions, develops a hydrogeologic conceptual model, establishes a water budget, outlines local sustainable management criteria, and provides projects and programs for reaching sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040 (SVBGSA 2020).

The site is currently undeveloped and contains natural vegetation, bare soil, and soil stockpiles, located to the west of the termination of Preston Street. Topographically, the site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. The site is bounded by existing residential and commercial development on its eastern border, and to the other three sides by an open space reclamation ditch adjacent to a creek fed by Main Canal. Water supply to the site would be sourced from the local groundwater aquifer. The groundwater basin currently has issues with lowered groundwater elevations, seawater intrusion, and groundwater contamination.

As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, development facilitated by the project would increase demand for water above existing conditions on the site.

The project’s estimated water demand would be approximately 8,073,440 gallons per year or approximately 24.8 acre-feet per year (AFY) at full buildout (Appendix A). The project’s water demands would be served by California Water Service-Salinas District (Cal-Water). Groundwater is the water source utilized by Cal-Water, with wells that extract water from five different groundwater basins, including the Corralitos-Pajaro Valley Subbasin, Salinas Valley-Langley Area Subbasin, Salinas Valley-180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, Salinas Valley-East Side Aquifer Subbasin, and Salinas Valley-Monterey Subbasin. The project site’s potential water demand would be less than

0.2 percent of Cal-Water Salinas District’s 2025 water demand of 16,609 AFY (Appendix A). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not introduce an unplanned increase in population, and therefore the project’s water supply needs are considered in the supply/demand estimates in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources via water demand.

While development facilitated by the proposed project would construct new impervious surfaces that would prevent groundwater recharge in certain areas of the site, the project would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No.

CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. Development would be required to include such facilities in the final design plans for the site, which would allow for the same volume of groundwater recharge on the site as existing conditions of the vacant site. Additionally, the project site is vacant but surrounded primarily by urban land uses consisting of Medium and Low Density residential neighborhoods to the west and north of the site, as well as commercial uses to the east along North Main Street. Impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Because the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
74 management of the basin, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 180-400 Foot Aquifer GSP.

As discussed under criterion (a), the proposed project would not degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The site has been graded and contains natural vegetation, bare soil, and soil stockpiles.

Development facilitated by the project would involve the construction of up to 76 units and stormwater drainage systems on the site. Construction would not substantially change the topography of the site. However, construction facilitated by the proposed project would include the addition of new impervious surfaces. Future development would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. Development facilitated by the project would be required to include such facilities in the final design plans for the site. Therefore, the project would not result in increased surface runoff that could result in flooding or exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, the project would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff.

As stated previously, construction facilitated by the project would be conducted in compliance with the State’s Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Preparation of the SWPPP in accordance with the Construction General Permit would require erosion-control BMPs at the construction area. BMPs that are typically specified within the SWPPP may include, but would not be limited to, temporary measures during construction, revegetation, and structural BMPs.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation during construction.

Construction and operational permitting requirements, including the NPDES Construction General Permit and City of Salinas MS4 Permit, would require erosion-control measures and the construction of on-site retention basins or bioretention facilities. These features would capture and treat stormwater runoff during construction and operation, ensuring no increase in erosion, siltation, surface runoff, or polluted runoff at the site.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the site and surrounding area is located within Flood Zone X, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the project would not alter the flood zone boundaries, cause excess flooding downstream of the site, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, a majority of the site and surrounding area is located within Flood Zone X, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2009). However, the site is bounded to the north, west, and southwest by a reclamation ditch which is located within a Flood Zone AE. Portions of the perimeter of the site are located within Flood Zone AE which is considered a Regulatory Floodway by FEMA. Future development within Flood Zone AE would be required to comply with the SMC Section 9-54.1, which states that all encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision is issued by FEMA. In addition, as discussed within Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would be required to comply with the City of Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.180(h) and General Plan Policy COS-17 which would require a 100-foot or 30-foot setback from the bank of the reclamation ditch.

The proposed project involves rezoning the project site, but no specific development proposal exists; therefore, there is not yet a proposed site plan. Any future development would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the SMC and General Plan Policies outlined above, and development in Flood Zone AE would not be allowed without a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and certification by a registered professional engineer, as described above.

Furthermore, any materials stored on the site that could pollute runoff from flood events would be properly contained and stored per applicable local, state, and federal regulations (refer to Environmental Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information).

There are no major water bodies within two miles of the site that could cause impacts from seiches on the site. Further, the site is not located in a tsunami inundation zone and there are no large bodies of water that could seiche and inundate the site (DOC 2020). Therefore, inundation of the site would not occur during the one-percent annual flood, the project would not release pollutants into floodwaters, and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
76 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The site is surrounded primarily by urban land uses, including residential and commercial development. Development facilitated by the project would not require new roadways or other features that would divide existing communities or make them inaccessible. Additionally, future development of the site would not require internal streets, as the site is located within existing city blocks. Future development facilitated by the project would maintain existing vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections through the surrounding area. No impact related to the physical division of an established community would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project consists of a GPA and RZ to modify the existing vacant 2.6-acre lot from Residential Medium Density (R-M-3.6) to Residential High Density (R-H-2.1). Land uses surrounding the project site consist of Medium and Low Density residential neighborhoods to the west and north of the site, as well as commercial uses to the east along North Main Street, shown in Figure 3. The site is also bound to the north, northwest, and west by an open space reclamation ditch.

Applicable policies intended to reduce environmental effects are discussed throughout the relevant sections of this IS-MND. Table 15 lists additional applicable policies intended to reduce environmental effects of projects from the 2002 General Plan and indicates the project’s consistency with those policies. This table also includes policies related to land use and planning, for informational purposes. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, development facilitated by the project would not conflict with the current AQMP that MBARD adopted to provide a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards. In addition, as described in Environmental Checklist Section 6, Energy, development facilitated by the project would not conflict with General Plan energy-related policies, and as described in Environmental Checklist Section 9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, development facilitated by the project would not conflict with GHGrelated policies provided in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, as described in Environmental City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
78 Checklist Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not conflict with adopted water quality standards or policies.

Table 15 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Policy Consistency
Policy LU-1.1: Balanced Land Use Pattern. Achieve a
balance of land uses to provide for a range of housing, jobs, libraries, and educational and recreational facilities that allow residents to live, work, shop, learn, and play in the community
Consistent. The project would facilitate the development of under-utilized areas in an urbanized part of Salinas with approximately 76 residential units. The project would
provide a higher-density residential option in an area of primarily low and medium density existing residential uses, and the site is located near existing commercial and mixed use development.

Policy LU-1.2: Accommodate Projected Growth. Provide a
plan for land uses that includes capacity to accommodate growth projected for 2020 and beyond.

Consistent. The project includes a GPA that would modify the site to increase allowable density increases to create new housing, thereby accommodating projected growth.

Policy LU-2.1 Minimize Growth Impacts to Agricultural
Lands. Minimize disruption of agriculture by maintaining a compact city form and directing urban expansion to the
north and east, away from the most productive
agricultural land.

Consistent. The project would involve infill development in an already urbanized area, where no active agricultural lands exist. Agriculture uses are located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site.

Policy LU-2.4: Compact Growth. Utilized well-designed
infill development and selective increase density within Focused Growth Areas to maintain compact city form.

Consistent. The project would facilitate new infill
development to occur in an existing residential area,
contributing to a more compact city form with increased density.

As demonstrated in Table 15, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the applicable land use policies of the 2002 General Plan. Because the project would be consistent with applicable 2002 General Plan policies to avoid or reduce environmental impacts, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The Salinas General Plan states that although quarrying operations have previously occurred in the City’s planning area, most mineral extraction sites are no longer considered significant resources.

The General Plan does not identify mineral resources within or near the site (City of Salinas 2002b).

The site is currently undeveloped, and no mineral extraction presently occurs or is proposed to occur on at the site. Therefore, the project would not affect the availability of any mineral resources. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
80 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Overview of Noise and Vibration
Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

HUMAN PERCEPTION OF SOUND
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013).

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
82 Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013).

SOUND PROPAGATION AND SHIELDING
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions.

Sound levels are described as either a “sound power level” or a “sound pressure level,” which are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measurement, the dB. However, sound power (expressed as Lpw) is the energy converted into sound by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers, such as an eardrum or microphone, which is the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and noise level limits are typically expressed as sound pressure levels.

Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidance indicates that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 10 dBA with open windows and an exterior-tointerior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011).

DESCRIPTORS
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (Leq), Day-Night Average Level (DNL; may also be symbolized as Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL; may also be symbolized as Lden).

Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).7 The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018).

Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low-frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural damage) such as cracks. These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 16.

Table 16 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by Caltrans, which are based on the 7 Because DNL and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of DNL or CNEL, the dBA unit is not included.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
84 general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 17.

Table 17 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response
Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources1 Severe 2.0 0.4
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: Caltrans 2020
1 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Noise Level Increases over Ambient Noise Levels
The operational and construction noise limits used in this analysis are set at reasonable levels at which a substantial noise level increase as compared to ambient noise levels would occur.

Operational noise limits are lower than construction noise limits to account for the fact that permanent noise level increases associated with continuous operational noise sources typically result in adverse community reaction at lower magnitudes of increase than temporary noise level increases associated with construction activities that occur during daytime hours and do not affect sleep. Furthermore, these noise limits are tailored to specific land uses; for example, the noise limits for residential land uses are lower than those for commercial land uses. The difference in noise limits for each land use indicates that the noise limits inherently account for typical ambient noise levels associated with each land use. Therefore, an increase in ambient noise levels that exceeds these absolute limits would also be considered a substantial increase above ambient noise levels. As such, a separate evaluation of the magnitude of noise level increases over ambient noise levels would not provide additional analytical information regarding noise impacts and therefore is not included in this analysis.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Transit Administration
The FTA has recommended noise criteria related to traffic-generated noise in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment that can be used to determine whether a change in traffic would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise (FTA 2018).

Table 18 shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels. These standards are applicable to project impacts on existing sensitive receivers (as defined under Environmental Setting above).

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
Table 18 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA DNL or Leq)
Allowable Noise Exposure Increase
(dBA DNL or Leq)
45-49 7
50-54 5
55-59 3
60-64 2
65-74 1
75+ 0
dBA = A-weighted sound pressure level
DNL =Day-Night Average Level
Leq =Equivalent continuous sound level
Source: FTA 2018
The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction in their Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). For adjacent residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period. These values are used in the construction noise analysis as the thresholds as the City does not specify construction noise limits.

City of Salinas

SALINAS GENERAL PLAN
The City of Salinas Noise Element contains goals and policies that are designed to protect the community from excessive noise. The Noise Element establishes the following goals and policies that would apply to the proposed project:

Goal N-1: Minimize the adverse effects of noise through proper land use planning.

Policy N-1.1: Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the Noise Contours Map as a guide for future planning and development decisions.

Policy N-1.2: Require the inclusion of noise-reducing design features in development and reuse/revitalization projects to address the impact of noise on residential development.

Policy N-1.4: Ensure proposed development meets Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards for construction.

Goal N-3: Minimize non-transportation related noise impacts.

Policy N-3.1: Enforce the City of Salinas Noise Ordinance to ensure stationary noise sources and noise emanating from construction activities, private development/residences and special events are minimized.

Table 19 and Table 20 present the noise standards and noise/land use compatibility standards established by the General Plan Noise Element.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
86 Table 19 Exterior Noise Standards
Designation/District of Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Leve, Ldn or CNEL, dBA Agricultural 70
Residential 60
Commercial 65
Industrial 70
Public and Semipublic 60
Source: City of Salinas 2002b
Table 20 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable1
Conditionally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential 50-60 60-70 70-75 75-85
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel 50-60 60-75 75-80 80-85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
50-60 60-70 70-80 80-85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters N/A 50-70 N/A 70-85 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports N/A 50-75 N/A 75-85 Playgrounds, Parks 50-70 N/A 70-75 75-85
Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
50-70 N/A 70-80 80-85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and
Professional
50-65 60-75 75-85 N/A
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50-70 70-80 80-85 N/A 1 Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved meet conventional Title 24 construction standards. No special noise insulation requirements. 2 Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development shall be undertaken only after a detailed noise analysis is made and noise reduction measures are identified and included in the project design. 3 Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development is discouraged. If new construction is proposed, a detailed analysis is required, noise reduction measures must be identified, and noise insulation features included in the design. 4 Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.

Source: City of Salinas 2002b
According to the City’s General Plan, if the noise level of a project falls within normally acceptable noise levels or conditionally acceptable noise levels, the project would be considered compatible with the nose environment. Normally acceptable noise levels implies that no mitigation would be needed. Conditionally acceptable noise levels implies that minor mitigation may be required to meet the City’s and Title 24 noise standards. If the noise level falls within normally unacceptable noise levels, substantial mitigation would likely be needed to meet City noise standards. Mitigation may involve construction of noise barriers and substantial building sound insulation.

CITY OF SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 37-50.180 of the Zoning Code identifies performance standards for noise for the receiving property based on its zoning. Residential and Public/Semipublic Districts allow maximum noise levels to be at or below 60 dBA or CNEL; Mixed Use and Commercial Districts allow maximum noise Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
levels to be at or below 65 dBA or CNEL, as long as interior noise levels at residential developments do not exceed a maximum of 45 dBA from exterior ambient noise; Parks/Open Space Districts allow maximum noise levels to be at or below 70 dBA or CNEL.

SMC Section 5-12.03 describes examples of prohibited noise disturbances, which include the following:
(a) Residential devices: Yard supplies, radios, television sets, musical instruments, and similar devices. Operating, playing, or permitting the operation or the playing of devices necessary and commonly associated with residential living. Such noise includes, but is not limited to, noise created by power mowers, trimmers, home appliances (radios and televisions), musical instruments, home workshops, vehicle repairs and testing, home construction projects, or similar devices or activities which produces or reproduces sound. Noise generated from residential devices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or a commercial property line or at any time to violate the provisions of this section. (b) Speakers; Amplified sounds. Using or operating for any purpose any speaker, speaker system, or similar device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, or at any time otherwise violates the provisions of this section, except for any noncommercial public speaking, public assembly, or other activity or activity for which a permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this Code.
(c) Animals. Owning or possessing any animal (including a bird) which frequently or for long duration, howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other sounds which create a noise disturbance across a residential or a commercial property line. (d) Loading and unloading. Loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential property line or at any time otherwise violate the provisions of this section. (e) Emergency signaling devices. The intentional sounding or permitting the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar, or similar emergency signaling device, except for emergency purposes or testing. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm or any motor vehicle alarm, unless such alarm is terminated within thirty (30) minutes of activation.
(f) Domestic power tools, machinery. Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically-powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or a commercial property line.

SMC Section 5.13.01 restricts the use of sound amplifying equipment and sound trucks between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Project Noise Setting
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. The Salinas General Plan Noise Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses as City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
88 residences, schools, hospitals, religious meetings, and recreational areas (City of Salinas 2002b).

Noise-sensitive receivers nearest to the site are provided in Table 21 below.

Table 21 Nearest Sensitive Receivers to Site
Nearest Receiver Zoning
Distance from Property
Line to Receiver (direction)
Distance from Center of
Rezone Site to Receiver
Residences to the east R-M-3.6 25 feet (east) 130 feet
Residences to the west R-L-5.5 100 feet (west) 300 feet Noise Measurements
The most prevalent source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic along nearby roadways such as Preston Street adjacent immediately east of the project site and Casentini Street approximately 190 feet north of the project site. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site, two 15-minute sound level measurements were conducted on Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:16 p.m. and 12:34 p.m. An Extech, Model 407780A, ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meter was used to conduct the measurements. Noise Measurement (NM) 1 was taken at the entrance of the project site approximately 15 feet from the centerline of Preston Street to capture ambient noise levels of the adjacent residences east of the project site. NM2 was at the northwestern edge of the project site at to capture noise levels near residences along Greenbriar Way and vehicular traffic along Casentini Street north of the project site. Table 22 summarizes the results of the noise measurements. Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix E. Figure 7 shows the noise measurement locations.

Table 22 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results- Short-Term Measurement
Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
NM1 Project Site Entrance
west of Preston Street
12:16 – 12:36 p.m. Approximately 15 feet to
centerline of Preston
Street
48 45 60
NM2 Northeastern edge of
project boundary
12:34 – 12:49 p.m. Approximately 500 feet
to centerline of
Casentini Street
49 44 60
Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix E.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
Figure 7 Noise Level Measurement Locations
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
90 a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
General Construction
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.

Variation in power from construction equipment imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2006). Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have high-impact noise levels.

Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels, but only during certain times of a day.

Construction noise would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Typical heavy construction equipment during project grading could include dozers, loaders, graders, and dump trucks. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. However, construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Per SMC Section 5-13.01, noise generated by construction activities would be required to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, for purposes of analyzing impacts from this project, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) criteria were used. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period (FTA 2018).

Project construction would occur nearest to single-family residences immediately to the east of the project site. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment could be located as close as 15 feet to adjacent properties, but would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the size of the project. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 170 feet from the single-family residences immediately adjacent southeast of the project site.

Construction noise is typically loudest during activities that involve excavation and moving soil, such as site preparation and grading. A potential high-intensity construction includes a dozer, grader, and front-end loader working during grading to excavate and move soil. At a distance of 170 feet, a Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
dozer, grader and front-end loader would generate a noise level of 73 dBA Leq (RCNM calculations are included in Appendix E). Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA noise threshold of 80 dBA Leqfor residential uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

On-stie Operational Noise
The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of residential development, such as heating ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery.

Vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance are consistent with the existing noise environment and would not be anticipated to exceed applicable noise level limits from the applicable regulatory thresholds. Therefore, these sources are not considered substantial and are not analyzed further.

Stationary Noise
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be HVAC units. This analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for multi-family residential sites, which is a 2.5-ton Carrier 24ABA4030 air conditioner with Puron refrigerant that has a sound power level of 76 dBA (see Appendix E for manufacturer’s specifications). The project was assumed to contain 83 HVAC units based on 83 dwelling units. Based on typical locations of HVAC units for multi-family buildings, it is assumed that 83 roof-top HVAC units distributed across the project site would be needed, producing a combined noise level at off-site receivers that is equivalent to all units being located at the center of the project site, which is measured at approximately 160 feet from the nearest off-site sensitive receivers adjacent west of the proposed development boundary along Olive Avenue(see Appendix E for the manufacturer’s noise data and HVAC noise calculations). For this analysis and based upon a sound power level of 76 dBA, it is estimated that the sound power level of a single HVAC unit would generate an equivalent sound pressure level of 58 dBA at 7 feet.

HVAC units are considered continuous noise sources. Per SMC Section 37-50.180, project impacts would be significant if operational noise levels from the project’s HVAC equipment exceed 60 dBA for nearby residential uses. Noise levels generated by the rooftop HVACs, would be approximately 50 dBA Leq at 160 feet, which would not exceed the City’s threshold of 60 dBA for nearby residential areas. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. Noise levels with and without project generated traffic were developed based on algorithms and reference levels from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Traffic Noise Model.

The project would generate additional vehicle trips when compared to existing conditions that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. As discussed in the project Transportation Analysis, the project is anticipated to generate 377 average daily trips (ADT), including 31 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 32 trips during the p.m. peak hour (Hexagon Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2022).8.

The Transportation Analysis study area includes roadway segments of North Main Street, West Menke Street, West Rossi Street, and Martella Street (Hexagon Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2022). 8 ADT was derived from W-Trans. Transportation Analysis, which utilized 91 townhome dwelling units for the proposed project.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
92 Project traffic intersection movements from the traffic study were used to estimate project ADT for each segment. In the Transportation Analysis, p.m. peak hour traffic was generally shown to consist of higher traffic volumes than the a.m. peak hour; therefore, p.m. peak hour traffic was utilized for conservative purposes. Traffic volumes depicted in this analysis are based on the Transportation Analysis scenarios that include existing conditions, existing plus project trip volumes (Hexagon Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2022).

The posted speed limit on West Menke Street and Martella Street is 25 miles per hour, while the speed limit for North Main Street and West Rossi Street is 40 miles per hour. There was no observed vehicle counts conducted during short term noise measurements due to restricted visibility of the roadway segments and the project site. Therefore, the vehicle classification mix for modeling assumes a typical breakdown of 97 percent automobiles, 2 percent medium trucks, and 1 percent heavy trucks. Traffic distribution through the day was modeled assuming 85 percent of total daily vehicle traffic during daytime hours and 15 percent of daily vehicle traffic during nighttime hours.

The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes from the proposed project. Noise levels with and without project-generated traffic for the existing volumes are shown in Table 23. As shown, traffic noise increases would be up to 2 dBA, which would not exceed the 3 dBA criterion for off-site traffic noise impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 23 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
Existing
Volume1
(ADT)
Existing +
Project
Volume2
(ADT)
Existing
Noise
Level1
(dBA)
Existing +
Project
Noise
Level2
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Increase3
(dBA)
West Menke
Street
Martella Street to North
Main Street (West)
25 420 530 57 58 1
West Menke
Street
North Main Street to Bridge
Street (East)
25 730 730 60 60 <1
North Main
Street
Cassentini Street to West
Menke Street (North)
40 25680 25800 73 73 <1
North Main
Street
West Menke Street to West
Rossi Street (South)
40 25570 25600 73 73 <1
West Rossi
Street
Sansome Street to Martella
Street (West)
40 11340 11450 70 70 <1
West Rossi
Street
Martella Street to North
Main Street (East)
40 11700 11790 70 70 <1
Martella Street West Menke Street to West
Rossi Street (North)
25 480 680 59 60 2
Martella Street West Rossi Street to West
Lake Street (South)
25 460 460 59 59 <1
dBA = A-weighted decibels; ADT = average daily trips; mph = miles per hour 1 Transportation Analysis Existing PM Peak hour trips
2 Transportation Analysis Project Trip Distribution
3Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Hexagon Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2022

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Project construction would not involve activities typically associated with excessive groundborne vibration such as pile driving or blasting. The equipment utilized during project construction that would generate the highest levels of vibration may include the operation of a large dozer9 . The City
of Salinas has not adopted standards to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation.

However, Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by Caltrans and the FTA (Caltrans 2020a; FTA 2018). The thresholds of significance used in this analysis to evaluate vibration impacts are based on these impact criteria, as summarized in Table 17.

Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as a large dozer within 15 feet of off-site residences. A dozer would create approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This would equal a vibration level of 0.16 in/sec PPV at a distance of 15 feet.10 This would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans of 0.24 in./sec.

PPV, and the structural damage impact to residential structures of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the dozer (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

Operation
As a residential use, the project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations. No operational vibration impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest public airport to the site is the Salinas Municipal Airport (SNS) located approximately

2.7 miles southeast of the project site. The project would not be located in the airport’s 55 dBA CNEL contour (City of Salinas 2002b). Because the site is located outside the noise contours of the SNS, and no other airports are located nearby, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft-related noise. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
9 Construction equipment assumptions were based on CalEEMod standard construction equipment use as detailed in Appendix E. 10 PPVEquipment = PPVRef (15/D)n (in/sec), PPVRef = reference PPV at 15 feet, D = distance ,and n = 1.1 City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
94 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
With full buildout and anticipating a density bonus, future development on the site may include the construction of up to 76 residential units over roughly 129,202 sf. As such, the project would directly generate population growth. Based on a per-person household rate of 3.85 for the City of Salinas (DOF 2021), the proposed 76 units would add an estimated 293 new residents to the City’s population. The 2021 population of Salinas is estimated at 160,206 (DOF 2021). The addition of new residents at the site would therefore increase the population of Salinas to 160,499. AMBAG estimates that the City’s population will increase to 175,358 by 2040, an increase of 17,299 residents since 2015 (AMBAG 2022). The population increase facilitated by the proposed project would therefore be within AMBAG’s population forecast for the City.

The city also currently has 43,579 housing units (DOF 2021). The addition of 76 units would bring the total number of housing units to 43,655. The latest AMBAG projections also estimate that the number of housing units in the city in 2040 will be 52,229 (AMBAG 2022. The housing growth facilitated by the project is therefore well within AMBAG projections. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially induce population growth through the provision of new housing units.

It should be noted that overcrowding is a documented issue in the City, with 7,351 households, or 18 percent of all households, categorized as overcrowded in 2016 (County of Monterey 2019). This is further evidenced by the persons per household rate in the City of Salinas (3.85) as compared to Monterey County (3.30) and the State of California as a whole (2.91) (DOF 2021). The project would assist in alleviating overcrowding in the City by providing more available units to existing residents.

Therefore, the proposed project would not facilitate substantial unplanned population growth in the area and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
96 b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. There are no existing housing units or people residing at the site. Therefore, future buildout facilitated by the proposed project would not displace any existing housing units or people. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:

1. Fire protection? □ □ ■ □

2. Police protection? □ □ ■ □

3. Schools? □ □ ■ □

4. Parks? □ □ ■ □

5. Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Salinas Fire Department (SFD) provides all-risk fire protection to the City of Salinas in the form of fire suppression, search and rescue, emergency medical services, operational training, disaster preparedness, community education, and other services based on community needs. Total authorized staffing for the SFD is 99 personnel, 93 of which are sworn public safety employees. SFD operates with three platoons. Each platoon has six engine companies that are made up of a Captain, Engineer, and two Firefighters, with one of the members being a Paramedic. The department has six pumper trucks, two ladder trucks, a crash truck for airport emergencies and other service vehicles (City of Salinas 2021b).

According to the City of Salinas Community Risk Assessment, the SFD has established performance goals for the first unit response time of within five minutes, 90 percent of the time for emergency medical incidents; and within five minutes, 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time for fire and all other priority incidents. Overall, response time for all priority incidents was within seven minutes, 23 City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
98 seconds, 90 percent of the time during 2018, indicating that the SFD is not meeting its performance goals (City of Salinas 2019a).

SFD Fire Station #1 is closest to the site at 216 West Alisal Street, approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the site. The site is in the existing service area of the SFD. Future development at the site would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code requirements and project design plans would be reviewed by the SFD prior to construction. The project would facilitate population growth and would result in an increased demand for services proportional to the population increase; however, the increase would be incremental and within the growth projections for Salinas, as discussed within Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing. The addition of an estimated 293 future residents would not create excessive demand for emergency services or introduce development to areas outside of normal service range that would necessitate new fire protection facilities. With the continued implementation of existing practices, including compliance with the California Fire Code, future development of the project site would undergo review by the SFD during the Building Permitting process to ensure adequate access, consistency with existing facilities, and acceptable response times. Therefore, the project would not place an unanticipated burden on fire protection services or affect response times or service ratios such that new or expanded fire facilities would be needed. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Salinas Police Department (SPD) provides police protection in the City of Salinas, including to the project site. The SPD has 187 full-time sworn officers. Under this sworn staffing level, the SPD has one sworn officer for every 867 residents. The SPD is divided into three divisions: Field Operations, Investigations, and Administration. The Field Operations Division is headed by one Assistant Chief who oversees the Patrol Division, K-9 Unit, Traffic Unit, Crime Scene Investigators Unit, and Special Operations (SPD 2021).

The SPD communications center screens and assign calls on a priority basis based on the nature of the problem. SPD response time data is currently unavailable; however, the highest priority calls are typically answered within a few minutes. Less urgent calls can take longer depending on availability of the police officers and other calls the department is responding to at the time.

The nearest police station is at 312 East Alisal Street, located approximately 0.6 mile south of the site. The project would generate new population and associated demand for services; however, the increase would be incremental and within the growth projections for Salinas, as discussed within Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing. The addition of an estimated 293 residents would not create excessive demand for police services or introduce development to areas outside of the SPD’s normal service range that would necessitate new police protection facilities.

Therefore, the project would not place an unanticipated burden on police protection services or affect response times or service ratios such that new or expanded police facilities would be needed.

Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The site is located in the Salinas City Elementary and Salinas Union High School Districts (City of Salinas 2017). In the 2019-2020 school year, Salinas City Elementary School District had an enrollment of 6,689 students and Salinas Union High School District had an enrollment of 15,818 students (California Department of Education 2021). Salinas City Elementary School District has a total capacity of approximately 9,000 students (Salinas City Elementary School District 2021) and Salinas Union High School District has a total enrollment capacity of 16,000 students (Salinas Union High School District 2021). Development facilitated by the proposed project would add up to 76 new residential units in the City. Assuming a conservative student generation rate of one student per residential unit, the development of the site would generate up to 76 additional students at local schools. While future development would increase the number of students, it would not do so to the extent that new school facilities would be required, as the increase would be incremental, and would not result in an exceedance in capacity of the local elementary and high school districts.

Furthermore, a school impact fee is collected for each residential unit that is constructed. As stated in California Government Code Section 65997, the payment of mandatory fees to the affected school districts would reduce potential school impacts to less than significant level under CEQA.

Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts, as the payment of impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for this impact. Therefore, impacts related to the need for new school facilities as a result of implementing the proposed project would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As described in Environmental Checklist Section 16, Recreation, the Salinas General Plan establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents and has a current ratio of 4.27 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The addition of 293 residents as a result of the project would result in a ratio of approximately 4.25 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. This would result in an incremental reduction in available recreation space per resident in the City but would be above the minimum required parkland standard of 3.0 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents.

Therefore, while the project would facilitate new housing development that would contribute additional residents to the City population, given the existing population in the City and the number of new residents the project would produce, it would not result in overuse of parks such that substantial physical alteration of parks would occur, or require the construction of new park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant; refer to Environmental Checklist Section 16, Recreation, for further discussion.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
100
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? As described in criteria a.1 through a.4 above, impacts related to expanded or altered government facilities, including fire, police, school, and park facilities, would be less than significant.

Other government facilities include library services, which are provided by the Salinas Public Library.

The public library system in Salinas is comprised of three branch libraries: John Steinbeck Library, Cesar Chavez Library, and El Gabilan Library. The library collection includes more than 100,000 books, magazines, movies, and audiobooks, and a separate Steinbeck Collection of more than a thousand books, articles, and historical items. The closest library branch is the John Steinbeck Library located at 350 Lincoln Avenue, approximately 0.8 mile south of the site.

As described in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, development facilitated by the proposed project would generate population growth of approximately 293 people.

This level of population growth would not be substantial in relation to the City’s overall population and would thus not require construction of new library facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Pursuant to the City’s Park Classifications and Sports Facilities Standards that were adopted in 2018, parkland is classified to assist in planning for the community’s recreational needs. The six classifications of parks in Salinas include community parks, neighborhood parks, small parks, school parks, greenways, and special use areas. Each classification corresponds to a different size and type of park as well as a different population-based standard for parks to person ratios. According to a recreational facility inventory conducted in 2019, Salinas provides more than 684 acres of public parkland and recreation facilities distributed throughout 52 park sites and numerous open space parcels (City of Salinas 2019b). The City’s current estimated population is 160,206 residents (DOF 2021). Therefore, the ratio of parks to residents in the City is 4.27 acres of developed public parkland for every 1,000 residents.

Recreational facilities nearest the site include the Rossi Rico Linear Parkway (located approximately

0.13 mile from the site), Bataan Memorial Park (0.41 mile from the site), and Central Community Park (0.76 mile from the site). Central Community Park is larger community park facility with a minimum of 20 acres or larger of developed recreational space that serves several neighborhoods.

Rossi Rico Linear Parkway and Bataan Memorial Park are small parks that are generally less than two acres in size and provide some recreation services to residents within 0.25-mile walking distance. All parks are within a one-mile radius of the site (City of Salinas 2018).

Table LU-4 of the Salinas General Plan establishes public services and facility service standards in the city, including standards for the city’s parks and recreation services. The service standard for parks in Salinas, as described by the Salinas General Plan is 3.0 acres of developed community parkland per 1,000 residents.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
102
As described in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would facilitate the development of up to 76 housing units at the site and would increase the population of Salinas to 160,499. Therefore, if all 76 housing units potentially allowed under the proposed GPA were constructed, the ratio of urban parks to residents in the City would be 4.25 acres of developed public parkland for every 1,000 residents. This would result in an incremental reduction in available recreation space per resident in the City but would be above the minimum required parkland standard of 3.0 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents. Additionally, the SMC requires the provision of on-site open space areas for residential and mixed-use developments.

Therefore, while the project would facilitate new housing development that would contribute additional residents to the City population, given the existing population in the City and the number of new residents the project would produce, it would not substantially alter citywide demand for parks such that substantial physical deterioration of parks would occur, or the construction of new recreational facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ ■ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
This section is based on transportation analysis for the project completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, provided in Appendix D.

Existing Roadway Setting
The project site is regionally accessible via US Highway 101, a four-lane freeway approximately 0.25 mile north of the site; SR 183, a two-lane highway approximately 0.4 mile south of the site; and SR 68, a four-lane highway approximately one mile south of the site. Local access to the project site is provided by North Main Street, West Rossi Street, West Menke Street, Martella Street, and Preston Street, which are described in detail below.

North Main Street is a four-lane, north-south roadway approximately 700 feet east of the project site. North Main Street is the primary north-south roadway in the City of Salinas and connects North Salinas and US Highway 101 to the city’s downtown area. North Main Street provides sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the roadway. Access to the project site from North Main Street would be provided by West Menke Street and West Rossi Street.

West Menke Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway that intersects with North Main Street approximately 700 feet southeast of the project site. There is a continuous sidewalk on the north side of West Menke Street, with parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. Access to the project site from West Menke Street would be provided by Martella Street.

West Rossi Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway that intersects with North Main Street approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the project site. West Rossi Street provides sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the roadway and on-street parking on its northern side. Access to the project site from West Rossi Street would be provided by Martella Street.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
104
Martella Street is a two-lane, north-south roadway perpendicular to West Rossi Street and parallel to North Main Street. Martella Street turns west toward the project site and becomes Preston Street approximately 350 feet east of the project site. Intermittent sidewalks and on-street parking is provided along both sides of Martella Street. Access to the project site from Martella Street would be provided by Preston Street.

Preston Street is a two-lane, north-south roadway immediately east of the project site. West Preston Street provides a sidewalk on its northern side with parking permitted on both sides of the roadway. The project site is located at the western end of Preston Street.

Existing Transit Setting
Existing transit services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by Amtrak and MST. The Salinas Amtrak station is located approximately 0.4 mile south of the project site and provides train and connecting bus services. Amtrak provides one daily train service in each direction via the Coast Starlight route and connecting bus services to train stations to the north several times daily.

The project site is served by five MST bus routes, including Routes 23, 29, 44, 49, and 95. Table 24 describes these routes and the bus stops’ location in relation to the project site.

Table 24 Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Services
Bus Route Route Description Hours of Operation Headway1 Bus Stop Location Route 23 Salinas to King City 6:45 am – 10:00 pm 60 minutes 0.2 mile southeast of the project site, west side of North Main Street
Route 29 Watsonville to Salinas
via Prunedale
5:45 am – 7:00 pm 120 minutes 700 feet southeast of the project site, west side of North Main Street
Route 44 Northridge to Salinas 6:30 am – 6:15 pm 75 minutes 0.4 mile southwest of the project site, south side of West Rossi Street
Route 49 Santa Rita via Northridge 6:15 am – 10:00 pm 60 minutes 0.2 mile southeast of the project site, east side of North Main Street
Route 95 Williams Ranch to
Northridge
9:30 am – 5:15 pm 120 minutes 0.2 mile southeast of the project site, east side of North Main Street
1 Approximate headways during peak commute periods.

Source: Appendix D
Existing Bicycle Setting
There are several bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site, which are categorized into one of the following three classes:
 Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Class I bikeways are bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles and offer two-way bicycle travel. The Rossi Rico Parkway is an east-west bike path that connects West Rossi Street to Davis Road on the western edge of Salinas. The Rossi Rico Parkway would be accessible from the project site via West Rossi Street, approximately 1,500 feet south of the site.
 Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Striped bike lanes are present on 1.3 miles of West Rossi Street between Davis Road and Sherwood Drive.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105
 Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Class III bikeways are bike routes that have signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes. A Class III bikeway is present on Rico Street, a north-south roadway approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site, for approximately 0.4 mile between West Rossi Street and Larkin Street. A Class III bikeway is also present on Casentini Street, an east-west roadway approximately 350 feet north of the project site, for approximately 0.5 mile between North Main Street and Rico Street.

Existing Pedestrian Setting
Pedestrian facilities near the project site consist primarily of sidewalks along roadways in the vicinity of the project site. While sidewalks are absent along several property frontages on Preston Street, Martella Street, and West Menke Street, a continuous sidewalk connects the project site to North Main Street, a major street in the project vicinity. Other pedestrian facilities in the area include marked crosswalks at the intersections of North Main Street and West Rossi Street, North Main Street and West Menke Street, and Martella Street and West Rossi Street. The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services in the area.

Regulatory Setting
California Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, which eliminated automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. In December 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the final update to the CEQA Guidelines consistent with SB 743, which states that VMT is the most appropriate metric of transportation impacts to align local environmental review under CEQA with California’s long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. In October 2020, the City of Salinas adopted its SB 743 Implementation Policy for analyzing VMT in CEQA documents. This policy establishes a VMT impact threshold of 15 percent below the countywide residential VMT per capita for residential uses in the city. The City’s VMT Evaluation Tool indicates that the current countywide average VMT per capita is 11.40; thus, a project would result in a significant impact if it would generate 9.7 VMT per capita or greater.

City of Salinas General Plan Policies
The General Plan contains the following transportation-related goals, policies, and programs, which apply to development projects in the City:

Goal CD-3 Create a community that promotes a pedestrian-friendly, livable environment.

Policy CD-3.6 Provide and maintain a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere by encouraging "pedestrian zones" with increased land-scaping, use of traffic-calming techniques on local streets, adequate separation from automobile traffic and the inclusion of amenities such as lighted crosswalks and increased lighting along sidewalks.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
106
Goal C-1 Provide and maintain a circulation system that meets the current and future needs of the community.

Policy C-1.2 Strive to maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) D or better for all intersections and roadways.

Policy C-1.3 Require that new development and any proposal for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan demonstrate that traffic service levels meeting established General Plan standards will be maintained on arterial and collector streets.

Policy C-1.4 Continue to require new development to contribute to the financing of street improvements, including formation of roadway maintenance assessment districts, required to meet the demand generated by the project.

Policy C-1.5 Ensure that new development makes provisions for street maintenance through appropriate use of gas tax and formation of maintenance assessment districts.

Policy C-1.7 Design roadway capacities to adequately serve planned land uses.

Policy C-1.8 Whenever possible, in reuse/revitalization projects, reduce the number of existing driveways on arterial streets to improve traffic flow.

Policy C-2.1 Urge a countywide approach to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) as the best way to reduce peak-hour vehicle trips and congestion at major employment centers.

Policy C-3.1 Support Monterey-Salinas Transit initiatives to provide adequate and improved (i.e. more frequent availability and use of Intelligent Transportation System measures where appropriate) public transportation service.

Policy C-3.2 Design development and reuse/revitalization projects to be transitoriented to promote the use of alternative modes of transit and support higher levels of transit service.

Policy C-3.3 Support the extension of commuter rail to Salinas to allow for alternatives to automobile use.

Goal C-4 Provide an extensive, safe public bicycle network that provides on-street as well as offstreet facilities.

Policy C-4.2 Increase availability of facilities, such as bike racks and well-maintained and well-lit bike lanes, that promote bicycling.

Policy C-4.4 Improve the biking environment by providing safe and attractive cutthroughs, bike lanes, and bike paths for both recreational and commuting purposes.

Policy C-4.6 Ensure that all pedestrian and bicycle route improvements meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessibility, and Caltrans standards for design.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107
Policy C-5.1 Increase availability of safe and well-maintained sidewalks in all areas of the City.

Policy C-5.5 Improve the walking environment by providing safe and attractive sidewalks, cut-throughs, and walkways, for both recreational and commuting purposes.

Implementation Program C-12: Salinas Bikeways Plan
Continue to implement the Salinas Bikeways Plan by applying for additional funding and requiring developers to assist in the provision of the needed facilities.

Implementation Program C-13: Pedestrian Facilities
Require new development and redevelopment to provide pedestrian facilities within the project and pedestrian connections with major destinations. Identify areas within the existing community that would benefit from improved pedestrian facilities. Explore additional funding sources to provide additional pedestrian facilities.
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Roadway Facilities
SB 743 has phased out the use of LOS to determine potential transportation impacts. However, in evaluating project consistency with the City’s General Plan, a comparison of LOS is still required pursuant to General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-1.3. This analysis is provided for informational purposes. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, free-flow conditions with little to no delay, to LOS F, congested conditions with excessive delays.

Intersections evaluated in this analysis include the signalized intersection of North Main Street and West Rossi Street, and the two-way stop-controlled intersections of North Main Street and West Menke Street, and West Rossi Street and Martella Street. These study intersections were evaluated using the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology using Synchro software (Appendix D).

The project would not be consistent with the City’s General Plan roadway operations policies if:
 The addition of project traffic would cause operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or  The addition of project traffic adds one vehicle trip to intersections already operating at an unacceptable level.

Table 25 summarizes the LOS analysis for each of the evaluated intersections. Further information regarding this analysis is provided in Appendix D.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
108
Table 25 Intersection Level of Service Impacts
No Project With Project
Intersection Control Peak Hour
Average
Delay (sec) LOS
Average
Delay (sec) LOS
Increase in
Delay (sec) Impact?
North Main Street and
West Menke Street
Two-way
stop
AM 65.9 F 79.5 F 13.6 Yes
PM 183.3 F 183.3 F 0 No
North Main Street and
West Rossi Street
Signal AM 28.9 C 29.1 C 0.2 No
PM 31.3 C 31.6 C 0.3 No
West Rossi Street and
Martella Street
Two-way
stop
AM 22.3 C 24.1 C 1.8 No
PM 26.2 D 27.9 D 1.7 No
Source: Appendix D
As shown above, the signalized intersection of North Main Street and West Rossi Street and the unsignalized intersection of West Rossi Street and Martella Street operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. However, the unsignalized intersection of North Main Street and West Menke Street currently operates at an unacceptable LOS F during AM and PM peak hours.

Implementation of the project is estimated to increase delay at the intersection by 13.6 seconds during AM peak hours.

While it is estimated that the project would adversely increase delay at the intersection of North Main Street and West Menke Street, field observations performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix D) indicate that gaps in traffic are available during both peak hours at the intersection. A gap in traffic, as defined by the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, is the time needed for a driver to safely navigate from a minor street approach. The longest gap is typically a left turn from a minor street onto a two-way major street, or the left turn from West Menke Street onto northbound North Main Street. Based on the values described in the Highway Capacity Manual, vehicles originating at the project site would need a minimum gap of at least 7.5 seconds to turn from West Menke Street onto northbound North Main Street. Field observations indicate that vehicles on West Menke Street were easily able to make this turn, with AM peak hour gaps averaging 12 seconds and PM peak hour gaps averaging 16 seconds (Appendix D). This results in fewer vehicles approaching the unsignalized intersection of North Main Street and West Menke Street. Therefore, impacts to policies related to operation of roadway facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities
The project site is adequately served by existing MST transit services along North Main Street, as listed in Table 24. The new transit trips generated by the project are not expected to create demand that exceeds capacity of transit service that is currently provided. The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new transit facilities.

Therefore, impacts to transit services would be less than significant.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed project would involve a GPA and subsequent rezoning to allow construction of highdensity residential units at the project site. Future development at the project site would likely include sidewalks, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. The project would not involve removal Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109
of any bicycle or pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
As described under Regulatory Setting, SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identify VMT as the most appropriate criteria to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. In adherence to SB 743, the City of Salinas has adopted its SB 743 Implementation Policy, which aligns with the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. As provided in the SB 743 Implementation Policy, a project would have to produce less than 9.7 VMT per capita to result in less than significant impacts. If it is anticipated that a project would have a significant impact on VMT, the impact must be reduced by modifying the project and/or implementing mitigation measures, which could include a travel demand management program, to reduce its VMT to an acceptable level.

According to VMT analysis performed using the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool (Appendix D) using default values for the project’s intended density, the proposed project is expected to generate

10.53 VMT per capita, which would exceed the impact threshold of 9.7 VMT per capita. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce the VMT per capita from 10.53 to 9.7.

Mitigation Measure
TRA-1 VMT Reduction Program
The applicant shall prepare and implement a VMT Reduction Program that reduces VMT generated by the project to VMT per capita of 9.95. The following two strategies shall be included in the Program:

1. Pedestrian Network Improvements. Construct pedestrian facilities to connect the site to existing pedestrian facilities on Preston Street. Creating safe pedestrian connections would encourage future residents to walk instead of drive.

2. Include Bike Parking, Pursuant to SMC Section 37-50.400. Provide bicycle parking on site, which would encourage future residents to bike instead of drive.

In addition to the above strategies, one or several of the following travel demand management strategies shall be considered for inclusion in the VMT Reduction Program, to achieve a VMT per capita of 9.7 or less:

1. Reduce On-Site Parking. Reduce the number of on-site parking spaces for future residents to less than what is required by SMC Section 20-85; or

2. Implement Unbundled Parking. Separate or “unbundle” parking costs from leases or property costs, requiring those that wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost; or

3. Affordable Housing. Provide affordable, below market-rate housing on site; or

4. Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Pattern. Implement a travel behavior change program by offering incentives to future residents to utilize alternative transportation modes, with at least 75 percent of future residents participating; and
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
110

5. Promotions and Marketing. Provide future residents with information regarding alternative transportation and travel demand management programs, with at least 75 percent of future residents participating; and

6. School Carpool Program. Implement a school carpool program among future residents of the project site.

The VMT Reduction Program shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit and shall demonstrate that the net VMT per capita would be 9.7 or less, using a combination of travel demand management strategies approved by the City.

Significance After Mitigation
Based on the City’s SB 743 Implementation Policy and VMT Evaluation Tool, implementation of the travel demand management Strategies 1 and 2 would reduce the VMT generated by the project to

9.95 VMT per capita. Additional strategies in the measure could be combined to reduce VMT to below the 9.7 threshold. Examples of combinations to achieve this reduction include, but are not limited to:
 Strategies 1 through 3 would reduce VMT to 9.53 VMT per capita  Strategies 1, 2, and 4 would reduce VMT to 9.7 VMT per capita  Strategies 1, 2, and 5 would reduce VMT to 9.53 VMT per capita  Strategies 1, 2, and 6 through 8 would reduce VMT generated by the project to 9.62 VMT per capita
The above combinations of measures would be sufficient to reduce VMT per capita to 9.7 or less. In practice, other measures may be included as appropriate. The intent of the above list is to demonstrate that implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 is technically feasible, and as such, a reduction of VMT per capita to 9.7 or less is achievable.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce VMT per capita to 9.7 or less. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Currently, there are no proposed site plans for future development on the site. However, development facilitated by the project would be required to undergo site plan review and building permit approval prior to construction. This process includes an evaluation of the site plan by the City and local fire district for site circulation, which would ensure that project designs do not include hazardous design features, including sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses.

Future development would include the potential for approximately 76 new residential units. This development is consistent to existing surrounding land uses and would be ensure that hazards from incompatible uses do not occur.

Future development on the site would also be subject to an evaluation of the site plan by the local fire district for emergency access, which would ensure that adequate access is provided. However, final project designs are not available to review for safety features and geometric design. Proposed vehicle access would be provided by a single driveway on Preston Street which would provide entry Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111
and exit to the site. No additional roadways or intersections are proposed at this time. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
112
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ ■ □ □
Assembly Bill 52
California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
114
In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005); “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
 Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
 and Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

On May 20, 2021, and June 2, 2021, the City of Salinas sent via certified mail notification letters to nine California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area per AB 52 and SB 18 requirements. The letters were sent to representatives of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, the Xolon Salinan Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, the Rumsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone, the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, the Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties, and the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County. On August 10, 2021, Helen Rubio of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians responded via email to City Associate Planner Oscar Resendiz, stating that no further consultation is requested for the project. No other responses were received.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115
The cultural resources records search and Native American consultation through AB 52 and SB 18 did not identify potential tribal cultural resources within the project site. However, there is always potential to uncover buried archaeological and tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities, which could potentially be considered tribal cultural resources eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register or be considered tribal cultural resources. Should project construction activities encounter and damage or destroy a tribal cultural resource or resources, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that tribal cultural resources are preserved in the event they are uncovered during construction and would reduce impacts regarding disrupting tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 Inadvertent Discoveries During Construction
In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during grading or construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find; an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted; and mitigation measures are put in place for the disposition and protection of any find pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s) prior to continuation of any earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find.

The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
116
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
118
Water
Water for future development facilitated by the project would be provided by Cal-Water via existing utilities on and adjacent to the site. The Cal-Water Salinas District relies entirely on groundwater, with wells that extract water from five different groundwater basins, including the Corralitos-Pajaro Valley Subbasin, Salinas Valley-Langley Area Subbasin, Salinas Valley-180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, Salinas Valley-East Side Aquifer Subbasin, and Salinas Valley-Monterey Subbasin. Water supply is discussed further under criterion (b) below.

New residential development facilitated by the project would increase demand for water above existing conditions on the site. The project’s estimated water demand would be approximately 7,083,090 gallons per year or approximately 21.75 acre-feet per year (AFY) at full buildout, which is less than 0.2 percent of Cal-Water Salinas District’s 2025 water demand of 16,609 AFY (Appendix A).

Existing supplies would be sufficient to meet forecasted water demand for development facilitated by the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
M1W provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City of Salinas.

Wastewater is transported to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) located in Marina. The RTP is designed with a daily capacity of 29.6 million gallons for secondary and tertiary treatment, and 5 million gallons for advanced purification for groundwater replenishment. The RTP treats an average of 17 million gallons per day and has a remaining capacity of 12.6 million gallons per day (M1W 2021).

The project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 6,727,867 gallons per year or 20.6 AFY (assuming water use is approximately 120 percent of wastewater generation), or approximately 0.018 million gallons per day. This would represent approximately 0.15 percent of the RTP wastewater treatment plant’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the RTP has capacity to meet the wastewater treatment demands that would be generated by future development facilitated by the project. Therefore, impacts associated with project’s incremental wastewater generation would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Future development facilitated by the project would be designed and engineered with drainage features appropriate to accommodate the needs of the future development. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, development facilitated the project would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. The proposed project would not require the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
A significant impact to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities may occur if a project’s demand for these services exceeds the capacity of local providers. Telecommunications in the area are provided by multiple providers including Xfinity and AT&T, which are available in the project area. Existing infrastructure occurs near the project site and facility upgrades would not likely be necessary.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119
As described in Environmental Checklist Section 6, Energy, project operation would require approximately 0.32 GWh of electricity per year and approximately 637 MMBtu of natural gas per year. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) would provide electricity to new development at the site and procures energy from clean and renewable sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. 3CE works in partnership with PG&E which continues to provide the project site with electricity transmission and natural gas. PG&E maintains power lines along Powell Street, West Market Street, Sherwood Drive, Clark Street, and others within Salinas (CEC 2017). The substation that powers lines in the vicinity of the site has a facility rating of 11.82 megawatts (MW) and a typical load of 9.01 MW, with a remaining capacity of 2.81 MW (PG&E 2022). The project would require approximately 0.04 MW,11 less than 1 percent of the remaining capacity of the PG&E substation. In addition, each year, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) publishes a comprehensive evaluation of the Independent System Operator transmission grid to assess grid reliability requirements, identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals, and explore projects that can bring economic benefits to consumers. The plan is prepared to support important energy and environmental policies while maintaining reliability through a resilient electric system. PG&E’s participation in the transmission plan process would ensure adequate electrical service and capacity (CAISO 2021). PG&E has adequate natural gas storage to ensure adequate natural gas supply, and supply often exceeds demand (PG&E 2022). Accordingly, the project would be accommodated adequately by existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities and would not require improvements to existing facilities, or the provision of new facilities, that would cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Estimated water demand for development facilitated by the project is 8,073,440 gallons per year or approximately 24.8 AFY (Appendix A). The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that each water supplier provide an assessment of the reliability of its water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Table 26 shows Cal-Water’s assessment for normal, single dry, and multiple-dry year periods, estimating supply and demand during the years 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045.

As shown in Table 26, available supply is expected to be adequate to serve projected water demand for the normal, single dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios assessed through 2045. Considering the additional water demand resulting from development facilitated by the project, adequate water supply would be available to serve full buildout of the site in any of the above water year scenarios through 2045. However, it should be noted that water supply available through the Salinas Public Water System would experience small shortfalls towards the end of the planning period.

Specifically, a 2.6 percent shortfall in normal years in 2045, 1.7 percent shortfall in 2040 and 2045 during single-dry years, and 3.6 percent shortfall in 2040 and 2045 during multiple dry year periods.

However, any potential dry year shortfalls in 2040 or 2045 in the Salinas Public Water System service area would be alleviated by proactive actions conducted by Cal Water, including efforts to identify new water supply sources and further reduce projected demand through conservation efforts (Cal Water 2021). Therefore, adequate water supply facilities would be available to serve the 11 The project would consume approximately 320 MWh per year, or 0.036 MW.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
120
project for the reasonably foreseeable future, and the project’s water system would connect to existing water supply infrastructure. Water supply impacts would be less than significant.

Table 26 Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand – Salinas District 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Total Supply (AFY) 16,609 16,988 17,575 18,175 18,853
Total Demand 16,609 16,988 17,575 18,175 18,853
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Single Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,152 17,542 18,147 18,765 19,464
Total Demand 17,152 17,542 18,147 18,765 19,464
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
First Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Second Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Third Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Fourth Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Fifth Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Source: California Water Service 2021

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
To comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the County must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste from landfills. In addition, Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) sets a statewide 75 percent recycling goal by 2020. AB 341 also requires businesses generating more than four cubic yards of solid waste to recycle and requires owners of multi-family housing with five or more units to provide recycling for their tenants.

The Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority transports solid waste generated in the City of Salinas to the Johnson Canyon Landfill. The landfill is permitted to receive a maximum throughput of 1,574 tons per day. The landfill has remaining capacity of 6,923,297 cubic yards an estimated closure date of 2055 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2020).

Based on CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A), development facilitated by the project would generate approximately 35 tons per year (approximately 192 pounds of solid waste per day). Assuming a minimum of 50 percent diversion from landfills in accordance with AB 939, the project would send approximately 96 pounds per day, or 0.05 ton per day, to the Johnson Canyon Landfill.12 This represents approximately 0.003 percent of the landfill’s allowable daily throughput of 1,694 tons per day (CalRecycle 2022). Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient available capacity and would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
12 Calculation: 192 pounds divided by 2 = 96 pounds
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
122
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather and other relevant factors (PRC 4201-4204, California Government Code 51175-89). The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include topography and slope, vegetation type and vegetation condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas.

In California, responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression is shared by federal, state, and local agencies. Federal agencies have legal responsibility to prevent and suppress wildfires in Federal Responsibility Areas. CAL FIRE prevents and suppresses wildfires in State Responsibility Area lands, which are non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value, are of statewide interest, defined by land ownership, population density, and land use. Wildfire prevention and City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
124
suppression in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. These lands include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert (CAL FIRE 2007).

The site is within a primarily developed and urbanized area, with minimal vegetation. The site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not within an area classified as Very High, High, or Moderate for fire hazard severity. The nearest VHFHSZ occurs approximately four miles southwest and the nearest SRA with a hazard severity rating is located roughly five miles east of the site (CAL FIRE 2007).
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The site is not located within or near (within two miles of) a VHFHSZ or SRA (CAL FIRE 2007). The site is bounded by primarily developed land and paved urban areas. All areas immediately surrounding the site are non-VHFHSZs. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 15, Public Services, the SFD provides emergency response and public safety services for the site. In addition, the project would not involve the installation of overhead powerlines or other infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfires nor exacerbate the risk of wildfire. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ ■ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to nesting bird species to less than significant. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce impacts to coast range newts, western pond turtles, and western burrowing owls.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
126
As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, no archaeological resources are known to occur on the site. Nevertheless, the potential for the recovery of buried cultural materials during development activities remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 would reduce impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary, avoiding impacts to any resources found during construction. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the potential to discover unanticipated resources during development is a possibility. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 provides for guidance steps to take in the event of an unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to important examples of California history or prehistory would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As noted throughout the Initial Study, most other potential environmental impacts related to the quality of environment would be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The cumulative setting includes proposed and approved projects within a one-mile radius of the project site. Cumulative projects were based upon a list of projects available for public review and comment on the City of Salinas website as well as approved projects within the area, including the Downtown Parking Lot and Intermodal Transportation Center Rezone Project and 11 Hill Circle Residential Project.

Cumulative impacts associated with some of the resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Water Supply, and Solid Waste (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][3]) and would be less than significant. Some of the other resource areas were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts, such as Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. As such, cumulative impacts in these issue areas would also be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). Other issues (e.g., Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) are site-specific, and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. The project would increase traffic compared to existing conditions. However, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 proposes TDM measures and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not conflict with an air quality plan, result in cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutants, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or odors. As Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction and operation of the project would not result in the upset, release, or use of hazardous materials. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 13, Noise, the project would not generate significant impacts to ambient noise or ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
128
This page intentionally left blank.

References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
References
Bibliography
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Draft White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. October 18, 2016.

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). 2022. 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. June 2022. https://www.ambag.org/plans/2045- metropolitan-transportation-plan-sustainable-communities-strategy. (accessed July 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed July 2021).

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Manual 8400 – Visual Resource Management.

Washington, DC. April 5, 1984.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed July 2021).
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed July 2021). ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed July 2021). ______. 2020. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed July 2021). ______. 2021. Ambient Air Quality Standards Designation Tool. [Database]. N.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/aaqs-designation-tool (accessed July 2021).

California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Tech. Rep. Burrowing Owl Consortium, Alviso, California.

California Department of Conservation. 2016a. Important Farmland Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed June 2021). ______. 2016b. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/ (accessed June 2021). ______. 2020. Monterey County Tsunami Inundation Maps.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/monterey (accessed June 2021).

California Department of Education. 2021. District Profile: Salinas Union High. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=27661590000000 (accessed June 2021).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.” May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed July 2021).

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
130
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

March 7, 2012. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843 (accessed May 2021).
______. 2021a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind 5 (accessed May 2021). ______. 2021b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). V5.2.14 http://bios.dfg.ca.gov (accessed May 2021).
______. 2021c. April. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. April 2021 (accessed May 2021). ______. 2021d. April. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication.

April 2021 (accessed May 2021).
______. 2021e. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (PDF). Available from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20communities (accessed May 2021).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Monterey County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ (accessed July 2021).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill (27-AA-0005). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2636?siteID=1971 (accessed February 2022).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed June 2021).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2). September 2013. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf (accessed February 2022).
______. 2019. List of eligible and official designated State Scenic Highways (XLSX). August 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed July 2021). ______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed February 2022).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf (accessed July 2021). ______. 2020. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/californiaretail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed July 2021). ______. 2021a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation (accessed May 2020).

References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
______. 2021b. “Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gascalifornia (accessed July 2021). ______. 2021c. “California Energy Consumption Database.” https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed July 2021).
______. 2021d. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed July 2021).

California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.

California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO). 2021. 2020-2021 Transmission Plan. http://www.caiso.com/Documents/BoardApproved2020-2021TransmissionPlan.pdf (accessed February 2022).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V8-02. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ (accessed May 2021).

California Water Service. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: Salinas District. https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SLN_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed February 2022).

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2007. Geologic map of the Marina and Salinas quadrangles, Monterey County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-353, scale 1:24,000.

Duymich, Chris. 2018. Air Quality Planner II, Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Personal communication via phone with Annaliese Miller regarding consistency with the air quality management plan, Associate Environmental Planner, Rincon Consultants, Inc. August 2, 2018.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. FIRM Maps 05042C0116G and 06053C0217G, effective April 2, 2009. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed June 2021).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed February 2022). ______. 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Prepared by ICF International for the Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. January 2015.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed February 2022).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ______. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
132
Jefferson, George T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report 7, p. 5-172. ______. 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted March 15, 2017. https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed July 2021).

Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan.

Adopted March 15. https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed July 2021).

Monterey, County of. 2010. Monterey County Williamson Act Lands. https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=46006 (accessed June 2021). ______. 2019. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/community_developme nt_files/housing_division_files/final_monterey_county_ai_-_report_0_0.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2020. Geologic Hazards Map.
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80aadc38518a45 889751e97546ca5c53 (accessed June 2021).

Monterey One Water (M1W). 2021. Regional Treatment Plant. https://montereyonewater.org/280/Regional-Treatment-Plant (accessed July 2021).

National Park Service. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 2021).

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online. 2021. Historic Aerials. www.historicaerials.com (accessed July 2021).

Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W. 1990. Geology of California, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

New York.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2022a. Distribution Investment Deferral Framework (DIDF) Map. https://www.pge.com/en_US/for-our-business-partners/distribution-resourceplanning/distribution-resource-planning-data-portal.page?ctx=large-business (accessed February 2022).
______. 2022b. California Gas Transmission Pipeline Status. https://www.pge.com/pipeline/operations/cgt_pipeline_status.page#flows (accessed February 2022).

Paleobiology Database. 2021. Fossilworks web-based portal. http://fossilworks.org and http://paleodb.org (accessed June 2021).

Poulin, R. G., L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Salinas, City of. 2002a. Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR. August 2002. ______. 2002b. City of Salinas General Plan. September 2002. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/ourgovernment/information-center/general-plan-info (accessed July 2021).

References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
______. 2017. School District Map. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/map/school-districts (accessed July 2021).
______. 2018. Parks and Recreation Centers. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/map/parks-andrecreation-centers (accessed June 2021). ______. 2019a. Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. Final Report, August 2019.

Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International. ______. 2019b. Parks, Rec and Libraries Master Plan.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/sprclsmp_v091019-highres_reduced_2.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2020. Traffic Volumes. Last Modified June 12, 2020. [ArcGIS Map]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=aff5e71aa1a344069d8a87f 839121503&extent=-121.6972,36.6523,-121.5704,36.7183 (accessed July 2021). ______. 2021a. (Mr. Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner) email exchange with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Ms. Katherine Green, AICP, Project Manager) regarding imported soils and site conditions.
______. 2021b. Fire Stations and Teams. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/firedepartment/fire-stations-and-teams (accessed June 2021).

Salinas City Elementary School District. 2021. About Salinas City Elementary School District. https://www.salinascityesd.org/aboutus#:~:text=From%20our%20district's%20beginning%20with,members%20at%2014%20elem entary%20schools (accessed July 2021).

Salinas Community Development Department. 1982. Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan. March 1982.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/airp ort_files/salinas_clup_reduced_size_adopted_05-17-1982_0.pdf (accessed July 2021).

Salinas Police Department. 2021. Divisions. https://www.salinaspd.com/about-divisions (accessed June 2021).

Salinas Union High School District. 2021. Frontline Recruitment. https://www.applitrack.com/salinasuhsd/onlineapp/default.aspx?all=1#:~:text=Our%20Dist rict%20has%20an%20enrollment,students%20in%20grades%207%2D12 (accessed July 2021).

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA). 2020. Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Approved January 9, 2020. https://svbgsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SVBGSA-Combined-GSP-2020-0123- rev-032520-1.pdf (accessed June 2021).

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2021. Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality handbook Memorandum. January 28, 2021.
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQAGHGInterimGuidance_Final2.pdf (accessed July 2021).

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
134
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Attachment E – Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed July 2021).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed July 2021).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2020. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed July 2021).

United State Census Bureau. 2021. QuickFacts. Monterey County, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/montereycountycalifornia (accessed July 2022).

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 1980. Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Area: Santa Cruz County, California. Soil Survey Data:

Version 8, September 16, 2019.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed April 2021).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2021. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed July 2021).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” Last modified:

March 8, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed July 2021). ______. 2020. “Outdoor Air Quality Data – Monitor Values Report.” https://www.epa.gov/outdoorair-quality-data/monitor-values-report (accessed July 2021). ______. 2020. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: October 23, 2020. epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicatorsatmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed July 2021).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation.

Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed May 2021). ______. 2021b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov (accessed April 2021).

United States Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Handbook 701: Landscape Aesthetics, a handbook for scenery management. Washington, DC.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Topo View. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/ (accessed July 2021).

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2020. UCMP specimen search portal. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed June 2021).

References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Salinas. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Megan Jones, Principal-in-Charge
Katherine Green, Project Manager
Aileen Mahoney, Senior Environmental Planner
Gianna Meschi, Environmental Planner
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Christian Knowlton, Biologist
Dustin Merrick, Paleontologist
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist
Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist
City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project
136
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Salinas
1 Preston Street Project Revisions to the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments
Revisions to the Draft IS-MND
The following pages provide a summary record of proposed changes to the text of the Draft IS-MND.

None of the changes would warrant recirculation of the IS-MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The amendments serve to correct typographical errors or clarify and strengthen the content of the IS-MND, but do not introduce significant new information.

Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underline font) where text is added. Other minor clarifications and corrections to typographical errors are also shown as corrected in this format, including corrections not based on responses to comments.

Introduction