Salinas City Council
October 24, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

FIT03F0005 FITZPATRICK, B.M. (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2003-02-13 FIT03F0006 FITZPATRICK, B.M. (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2003-02-13 WOR06F0002 WORCESTER, DR. S. (CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, MONTEREY BAY) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2006-03-06
Map Index Number: 53629 EO Index: 53629
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAAAA01181
Occurrence Number: 610 Occurrence Last Updated: 2006-03-09 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 Common Name: California tiger salamander - central California DPS Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3T3
State: S3
Other Lists: CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

LIVES IN VACANT OR MAMMAL-OCCUPIED BURROWS THROUGHOUT
MOST OF THE YEAR; IN GRASSLAND, SAVANNA, OR OPEN WOODLAND HABITATS.

NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL

BURROWS, AND VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER
SOURCES FOR BREEDING.

Last Date Observed: 2006-03-06 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2006-03-06 Occurrence Rank: Excellent Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

JUST WEST OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:
"COYOTE" & "BULLFROG" ARE TWO ADJACENT VERNAL POOLS.

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF VERNAL POOLS WITHIN GRASSLAND/OAK WOODLAND. MACHINE GUN FLAT IS TOPOGRAPHICALLY BELOW A SERIES OF MIMA MOUND COMPLEXES;SURROUNDED ON 3 SIDES BY MARITIME CHAPARRAL OR MIXED LIVE,OAK WOODLAND/CHAPARRAL.

Threats:

General:
22 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN "COYOTE" AND 19 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN "BULLFROG" ON 13 FEB 2003. 1 LARVA OBSERVED ON 6 MAR 2006 IN THE CRATER JUST WEST OF THE MAIN VERNAL POOL.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 9 470Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63425 / -121.74946UTM: Zone-10 N4055028 E611801 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

FIT03F0007 FITZPATRICK, B.M. (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2003-02-13 Map Index Number: 53632 EO Index: 53632
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAAAA01181
Occurrence Number: 611 Occurrence Last Updated: 2003-12-18 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 Common Name: California tiger salamander - central California DPS Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3T3
State: S3
Other Lists: CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

LIVES IN VACANT OR MAMMAL-OCCUPIED BURROWS THROUGHOUT
MOST OF THE YEAR; IN GRASSLAND, SAVANNA, OR OPEN WOODLAND HABITATS.

NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL

BURROWS, AND VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER
SOURCES FOR BREEDING.

Last Date Observed: 2003-02-13 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2003-02-13 Occurrence Rank: Excellent Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

MACHINE GUN FLATS, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:
"MACHINE GUN FLATS" POND.

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF VERNAL POOLS WITHIN GRASSLAND/OAK WOODLAND.

Threats:

General:
14 JUVENILES OBSERVED ON 13 FEB 2003.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 7 460Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63544 / -121.74679UTM: Zone-10 N4055163 E612037 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

JEN16F0001 JENNINGS, M. (LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2016-01-15 MOF17F0002 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-21 MOF17F0003 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-29 MOF17F0004 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-07-28 MOF17F0006 MOFFITT, E. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-11-28 MOF18F0001 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2018-01-30 MOF18F0002 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2018-03-14 MOF18F0003 MOFFITT, E. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2018-01-17 MOR05F0011 MORI, B. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2005-02-12 SHI17F0001 SHIELDS , R. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-22 Map Index Number: 68166 EO Index: 68318
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAAAA01181
Occurrence Number: 756 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-10-24 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 Common Name: California tiger salamander - central California DPS Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3T3
State: S3
Other Lists: CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

LIVES IN VACANT OR MAMMAL-OCCUPIED BURROWS THROUGHOUT
MOST OF THE YEAR; IN GRASSLAND, SAVANNA, OR OPEN WOODLAND HABITATS.

NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL

BURROWS, AND VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER
SOURCES FOR BREEDING.

Last Date Observed: 2018-03-14 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2018-03-14 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: DOD-ARMY, PVT, MNT COUNTY Trend: Decreasing Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

N & S SIDES OF WATKINS GATE RD FROM CHAPEL HILL RD TO THE W SIDE OF CAMP ST, FORT ORD, BETWEEN SEASIDE AND SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO INCLUDE DETECTION AND RELOCATION SITES FROM 2005, 2016, 2017, & 2018. ON FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Ecological:

DEVELOPMENT SITE & ADJACENT PRESERVE IN OAK WOODLAND, ANNUAL GRASSLAND & MARITIME CHAPARRAL ON SANDY SOILS. INCLUDES POND WHERE CTS RELOCATED FROM OCCURRENCE #1277 WERE RELEASED IN 2017-18. A HYBRID WAS FOUND & REMOVED IN 2005.

Threats:

EAST GARRISON DEVELOPMENT. HYBRIDIZATION W/ INTRODUCED TIGER SALAMANDERS. PREDATORS, ARGENTINE ANTS, TRAFFIC, PETS.

General:
8 ADULTS RELOCATED FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE 12 FEB 2005. 2 DETECTED IN 2011. 1 JUVENILE FOUND IN STORM DRAIN SEDIMENT BAG ON 15 JAN 2016 & RELEASED NEARBY. 5 JUVS RELEASED HERE IN 2017 & 2 IN 2018. 1 JUV DET 17 JAN 2018.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 3, SW (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 52 210Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.65047 / -121.73863UTM: Zone-10 N4056839 E612746 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

JEN16F0003 JENNINGS, M. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2016-08-10 MOF17F0001 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-03-29 MOF17F0002 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-21 MOF17F0003 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-29 MOF17F0004 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-07-28 MOF17F0005 MOFFITT, E. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-09-11 MOF17F0006 MOFFITT, E. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-11-28 MOF18F0001 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2018-01-30 MOF18F0002 MOFFITT, E. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2018-03-14 SHI17F0001 SHIELDS , R. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE 2017-06-22 Map Index Number: B1208 EO Index: 113100
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAAAA01181
Occurrence Number: 1066 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-11-02 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 Common Name: California tiger salamander - central California DPS Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3T3
State: S3
Other Lists: CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

LIVES IN VACANT OR MAMMAL-OCCUPIED BURROWS THROUGHOUT
MOST OF THE YEAR; IN GRASSLAND, SAVANNA, OR OPEN WOODLAND HABITATS.

NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL

BURROWS, AND VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER
SOURCES FOR BREEDING.

Last Date Observed: 2018-03-14 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2018-03-14 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: PVT, MNT COUNTY Trend: Decreasing
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SW SIDE OF RESERVATION RD IN VICINITY OF THE INTERSECTION WITH INTER-GARRISON RD, FORT ORD NATIONAL MONUMENT.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO INCLUDE PROVIDED COORDINATES. BREEDING POND & ADULT DETECTIONS ON E SIDE OF INTER-GARRISON RD. DEAD LARVAE FOUND ON W SIDE OF INTER-GARRISON RD, ADD'L DEAD CTS FOUND IN POND. CTS RELOCATED IN 2017-18 WERE MOVED TO OCCURRENCE #919.

Ecological:

INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED DURING HOUSING CONSTRUCTION. LARVAE OBS IN DETENTION POND (LIVE) & AT OUTLET OF POND'S OVERFLOW PIPE (DEAD). ADULTS OBSERVED AT ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITES ADJACENT TO POND. NEXT TO BUSY ROADS, SURROUNDED BY OAK WOODLAND.

Threats:

VEHICLE TRAFFIC, PETS, HUMAN INTERACTION, DEVELOPMENT, STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, POSSIBILITY OF HYBRIDIZATION.

General:
3 METAMORPHS OBSERVED IN POND, 2016. 39 DEAD LARVAE OBS AT PIPE OUTLET, MAR 2017. 2 LIVE JUVENILES & 14 DEAD (AGE CLASS UNKNOWN) OBS IN POND, 11 SEP 2017. 5 JUVS MOVED OFF CONSTRUCTION SITE, JUN-NOV 2017. 2 JUVS MOVED OFFSITE, JAN-MAR 2018.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 3, NW (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 17 196Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.65873 / -121.74127UTM: Zone-10 N4057753 E612498 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

WAG17F0002 WAGONER, S. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR TARICHA TOROSA 2017-04-03 Map Index Number: B2165 EO Index: 114091
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAAAF02032
Occurrence Number: 90 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-02-22 Scientific Name: Taricha torosa Common Name: Coast Range newt Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4
State: S4
Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DRAINAGES FROM MENDOCINO COUNTY TO SAN DIEGO
COUNTY.

LIVES IN TERRESTRIAL HABITATS AND WILL MIGRATE OVER 1 KM TO BREED IN PONDS, RESERVOIRS AND SLOW MOVING STREAMS.

Last Date Observed: 2017-04-03 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2017-04-03 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: CALTRANS Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SALINAS RIVER, UNDER THE HWY 68 BRIDGE CROSSING, ABOUT 1.5 MILES NW OF SPRECKELS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES.

Ecological:

SMALL, SHALLOW POOL IN BED OF SALINAS RIVER. SUBSTRATE WAS SANDY MUD. HABITAT WAS WILLOW/COTTONWOOD RIPARIAN SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL FIELDS. DETECTED DURING BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT.

Threats:

DISTURBANCE FROM CONSTRUCTION, LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF HABITAT, DRYING OF POOL BEFORE COMPLETION OF METAMORPHOSIS.

General:
1 LARVA OBSERVED SWIMMING IN SMALL POOL ON 3 APR 2017; BY THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE POOL HAD DRIED AND THE LARVA WAS FOUND DEAD & DESSICATED.

PLSS: T15S, R03E, Sec. 18, NE (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 5 30Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62971 / -121.67394UTM: Zone-10 N4054615 E618560 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MYE30A0001 MYERS, G. - NOTES ON SOME AMPHIBIANS IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA. PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 43:55-64. 1930-03-12
SNY22S0002 SNYDER, J. - CAS #2681, 2682, 2683, 2684 & 2685 COLLECTED NEAR SALINAS 1922-05-05 Map Index Number: B2454 EO Index: 114378
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAABF02020
Occurrence Number: 838 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-03-05 Scientific Name: Spea hammondii Common Name: western spadefoot Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3
State: S3S4
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

OCCURS PRIMARILY IN GRASSLAND HABITATS, BUT CAN BE FOUND IN VALLEY-FOOTHILL HARDWOOD WOODLANDS.

VERNAL POOLS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR BREEDING AND EGG-LAYING.

Last Date Observed: 1922-05-05 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1922-05-05 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

VICINITY OF SALINAS, NEAR NATIVIDAD CREEK.

Detailed Location:

PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS "NEAR SALINAS." MAPPED AS BEST GUESS ALONG WETLAND PORTIONS OF NATIVIDAD CREEK ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF SALINAS BASED ON A 1912 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FOR THE SALINAS QUAD.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:
5 COLLECTED ON 5 MAY 1922.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 28 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 1,987 37Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.68651 / -121.63914UTM: Zone-10 N4060959 E621583 Monterey Natividad (3612165), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

KEE08F0001 KEEGAN, D. & B. TRAVERS (D.R. DUFFY AND ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR RANA DRAYTONII 2008-04-28 KEE09F0001 KEEGAN, D. (D.R. DUFFY AND ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR RANA DRAYTONII & ACTINEMYS MARMORATA PALLIDA 2009-05-04
Map Index Number: 71515 EO Index: 72411
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AAABH01022
Occurrence Number: 997 Occurrence Last Updated: 2009-05-12 Scientific Name: Rana draytonii Common Name: California red-legged frog Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3
State: S2S3
Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

LOWLANDS AND FOOTHILLS IN OR NEAR PERMANENT SOURCES OF

DEEP WATER WITH DENSE, SHRUBBY OR EMERGENT RIPARIAN
VEGETATION.

REQUIRES 11-20 WEEKS OF PERMANENT WATER FOR LARVAL
DEVELOPMENT. MUST HAVE ACCESS TO ESTIVATION HABITAT.

Last Date Observed: 2009-05-04 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-05-04 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: MNT WATER RESOURCES AGENCY Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

LAS SALINAS, ON THE SALINAS RIVER, 248 METERS NORTH OF RIVER MARKER MILE 5 (TOPO), SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

ON THE EAST BANK (ON TOPO APPEARS TO BE WEST BANK, BUT CHANNEL SHIFTED) IN STREAMSIDE EMERGENT VEGETATION. PROJECT SITE FOR SALINAS RIVER DIVERSION FACILITY. 4 MAY 2009 FROG OBSERVED IN RAINWATER POOL FORMED WITHIN DIVERSION FACILITY.

Ecological:

HABITAT (2008): STREAMSIDE/EMERGENT JUNCUS VEGETATION & ASSOC LITTER PROVIDE HABITAT FOR SPECIES. UPLAND HERBACEOUS VEG DOM BY NETTLE, POISON OAK; DOM CANOPY COAST LIVE OAK/WILLOW; ARUNDO STANDS PRESENT. 2009: SITE ALMOST DENUDEDED OF VEG.

Threats:

THREATENED BY HABITAT REMOVAL & ALTERATION OF PROPOSED WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, AND BULLFROGS.

General:
5 SUBADULTS OBS 28 APR 2008 ADJ TO PROJECT SITE. ONE SUBADULT WAS RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT AREA BY D.

KEEGAN. 1 SUBADULT CAPT/REMOVED JUL '08. 1 SUBADULT OBS 4 MAY 2009 - RELOCATED 75M UPSTREAM TO APPROPRIATE HABITAT,EAST BANK.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 16, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 10 15Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.70870 / -121.74997UTM: Zone-10 N4063287 E611647 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

PAL97F0001 PALMISANO, T. (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE-REGION 3) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ATHENE CUNICULARIA (BURROW SITE) 1997-08-27
Map Index Number: 37728 EO Index: 32730
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ABNSB10010
Occurrence Number: 256 Occurrence Last Updated: 1997-12-16 Scientific Name: Athene cunicularia Common Name: burrowing owl Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4
State: S3
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND
SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOW-GROWING VEGETATION.

SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING
MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Last Date Observed: 1997-08-27 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1997-08-27 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 183, BETWEEN SALINAS AND SANTA RITA.

Detailed Location:

SITE CONSISTS OF A 7-ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE SW CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HARDIN PARKWAY AND REGENCY CIRCLE, SALINAS.

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF A WEEDY FIELD VEGETATED PRIMARILY BY NON-NATIVE ANNUALS.

Threats:

THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT.

General:
6 BIRDS REPORTED EARLIER; 2 BIRDS (THAT APPEARED TO HAVE NESTED) OBSERVED ON 27 AUG 1997.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 16, SW (M) Accuracy: 1/10 mile Area (acres): 0 95Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.71272 / -121.65128UTM: Zone-10 N4063851 E620456 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR90F0048 MORI, B. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ATHENE CUNICULARIA (BURROWING OWL) 1990-01-12 SIE04F0004 SIEMENS, M. (LFR, INC.) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ATHENE CUNICULARIA (BURROW SITE) 2004-06-28 Map Index Number: 49151 EO Index: 49151
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ABNSB10010
Occurrence Number: 531 Occurrence Last Updated: 2004-07-12 Scientific Name: Athene cunicularia Common Name: burrowing owl Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4
State: S3
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND
SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOW-GROWING VEGETATION.

SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING
MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Last Date Observed: 2004-06-28 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2004-06-28 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Decreasing
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SITE BORDERED BY HIGHWAY 68 TO THE WEST, HIGHWAY 101 TO THE NORTH, AND RAILROAD TRACKS TO THE SOUTH, SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND/RUDERAL VEGETATION WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL AREA OF SALINAS SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.

Threats:

THREATENED BY ANNUAL DISKING, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED MOTEL (MOTEL IN PLACE BY 1993), AND HUMAN FOOT TRAFFIC.

General:
2 OWLS OBSERVED ON-SITE ON 12 JAN 1990. OWLS RELOCATED TO ADJACENT PARCELS WHEN SITE WAS DISKED; AFTER DISKING, 2 FEMALES AND 1 MALE OBSERVED. 2 ADULTS AND 4 JUVENILES OBSERVED AT THE BURROW ON 28 JUN 2004.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 29 (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 40Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.68260 / -121.66350UTM: Zone-10 N4060495 E619411 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MON07F0002 MONK, G. & S. SCOLARI (MONK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ATHENE CUNICULARIA (WINTER BURROW SITE) 2007-01-17
Map Index Number: 70227 EO Index: 71109
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ABNSB10010
Occurrence Number: 993 Occurrence Last Updated: 2007-10-17 Scientific Name: Athene cunicularia Common Name: burrowing owl Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4
State: S3
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND
SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOW-GROWING VEGETATION.

SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING
MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Last Date Observed: 2007-01-17 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2007-01-17 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

0.7 MILE NE OF THE INTERSECTION OF RUSSELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 101, SANTA RITA.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

HABITAT SURROUNDING BURROW SITE CONSISTS OF A SMALL, HIGHLY-MANIPULATED, RUDERAL AREA ALONG THE SIDE OF A FARM ROAD OF STRAWBERRY FIELDS; VEGETATION FREQUENTLY CONTROLLED BY HERBICIDE APPLICATION AND OTHER MEANS.

Threats:

THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT.

General:
1 OWL OBSERVED OCCUPYING A GROUND SQUIRREL BURROW ON 17 JAN 2007; NO LONG-TERM SIGNS OF INHABITANCE (PELLETS OR WHITEWASH) WERE OBSERVED.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 04, SW (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 141Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.74055 / -121.64694UTM: Zone-10 N4066945 E620800 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 55925 EO Index: 55941
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: ABPAT02011
Occurrence Number: 65 Occurrence Last Updated: 2004-06-25 Scientific Name: Eremophila alpestris actia Common Name: California horned lark Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T4Q
State: S4
Other Lists: CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL REGIONS, CHIEFLY FROM SONOMA COUNTY TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY. ALSO MAIN PART OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND EAST TO FOOTHILLS.

SHORT-GRASS PRAIRIE, "BALD" HILLS, MOUNTAIN MEADOWS, OPEN COASTAL PLAINS, FALLOW GRAIN FIELDS, ALKALI FLATS.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

0.75 MILE NE OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE SALINAS RIVER AND BLANCO ROAD, JUST EAST OF THE SALINAS RIVER, WEST OF MARINA.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF GRASSLAND.

Threats:

General:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OBSERVED DURING 1992.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 28, SW (M) Accuracy: 2/5 mile Area (acres): 0 120Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.68281 / -121.75643UTM: Zone-10 N4060407 E611108 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BEE91R0001 BEEDY, E.C., S.D. SANDERS & D. BLOOM - BREEDING STATUS, DISTRIBURTION, AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD (AGELAIUS TRICOLOR), 1850-1989. 1991-06-XX NEF37R0001 NEFF, J.A. - DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRICOLORED RED WING. THE CONDOR 39(2):61-81. 1937-03-XX TRI14D0001 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL - ICE (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - 1907-2014 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD RECORDS FROM UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL, INFORMATION CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (ICE) 2014-XX-XX Map Index Number: A0375 EO Index: 101934
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ABPBXB0020
Occurrence Number: 865 Occurrence Last Updated: 2016-06-07 Scientific Name: Agelaius tricolor Common Name: tricolored blackbird Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1G2
State: S1S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_EN-Endangered
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch List
USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

REQUIRES OPEN WATER, PROTECTED NESTING SUBSTRATE, AND

FORAGING AREA WITH INSECT PREY WITHIN A FEW KM OF THE
COLONY.

Last Date Observed: 1932-05-04 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1932-05-04 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

GENERAL AREA ABOUT 3.5 MI SSE OF HWY 156 & HWY 183 INTERSECTION, 4.5 MI NW OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:
1932 LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS "4.5 MILES NORTHWEST OF SALINAS." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. UNCLEAR IF 2014 SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE SAME LOCATION AS 1932 SITE. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991).

Ecological:
1932 HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAILS/TULES ALONG SLOUGH. MANY SLOUGHS IN THE VICINITY. IN 2014, ESPINOSA LAKE IN NORTHWEST SALINAS APPEARED TO BE THE NEAREST POTENTIAL HABITAT IN THE AREA.

Threats:

General:

A COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 750 NESTS OBSERVED ON 4 MAY 1932 (NEFF 1937). 0 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 18 APR 2014.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 14 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 1,987 23Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.7177 / -121.7235UTM: Zone-10 N4064316 E613999 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BEE91R0001 BEEDY, E.C., S.D. SANDERS & D. BLOOM - BREEDING STATUS, DISTRIBURTION, AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF THE TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD (AGELAIUS TRICOLOR), 1850-1989. 1991-06-XX NEF37R0001 NEFF, J.A. - DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRICOLORED RED WING. THE CONDOR 39(2):61-81. 1937-03-XX TRI14D0001 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL - ICE (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - 1907-2014 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD RECORDS FROM UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL, INFORMATION CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (ICE) 2014-XX-XX Map Index Number: 45813 EO Index: 101936
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ABPBXB0020
Occurrence Number: 866 Occurrence Last Updated: 2016-07-05 Scientific Name: Agelaius tricolor Common Name: tricolored blackbird Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1G2
State: S1S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_EN-Endangered
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch List
USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

REQUIRES OPEN WATER, PROTECTED NESTING SUBSTRATE, AND

FORAGING AREA WITH INSECT PREY WITHIN A FEW KM OF THE
COLONY.

Last Date Observed: 1936-05-20 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1936-05-20 Occurrence Rank: None
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Location:

SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

LOCATION GIVEN ONLY AS "NEAR SALINAS." COLONY STORED IN THE UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME WAS "SALINAS." MAPPED GENERALLY TO THE VICINITY OF SALINAS. EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

Ecological:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL/TULE MARSH.

Threats:

General:

A COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 2,000 NESTS OBSERVED ON 20 MAY 1936 (NEFF 1937). COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991).

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 32 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 40Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.67773 / -121.65550UTM: Zone-10 N4059965 E620134 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Map Index Number: B4739 EO Index: 117679
Key Quad: Greenfield (3612132) Element Code: AFCJB19013 Occurrence Number: 1 Occurrence Last Updated: 2020-11-06 Scientific Name: Lavinia exilicauda harengus Common Name: Monterey hitch Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4T3
State: S3
Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

Last Date Observed: 2018-10-13 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2018-10-13 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG SALINAS RIVER AND NACIMIENTO RIVER, FROM SAN MIGUEL DOWNSTREAM TO MONTERERY BAY.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED NON-SPECIFICALLY ALONG THIS 110 MILE STRETCH OF RIVER.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

DETECTED AT VARIOUS SITES ALONG THIS STRETCH OF RIVER HISTORICALLY AND ALSO MORE RECENTLY IN 1990, 1991, 1999, 2002, 2010, AND 2018.

PLSS: T19S, R07E, Sec. 23 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 7,478 250Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.26818 / -121.1755UTM: Zone-10 N4015238 E663888 Monterey, San Luis Obispo San Miguel (3512076), Bradley (3512077), Wunpost (3512087), Hames Valley (3512088), San Ardo (3612018), Espinosa Canyon (3612111), San Lucas (3612121), Thompson Canyon (3612122), Greenfield (3612132), North Chalone Peak (3612142), Soledad (3612143), Palo Escrito Peak (3612144), Gonzales (3612154), Chualar (3612155), Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CAS03R0001 CASAGRANDE, J. ET AL. - FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT QUALITY FOR SELECTED STREAMS OF THE SALINAS WATERSHED: SUMMER/FALL 2002. THE WATERSHED INSTITUTE REPORT WI-2003-02. 2003-05-29 CUT19D0001 CUTHBERT, P. (FISHBIO) - SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING REPORT OF SPECIMENS CAPTURED OR SALVAGED [SC-002147] 2019-01-11 DFWNDD0001 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING LEGACY PERMIT REPORTED DATA XXXX-XX-XX HAB92R0001 HABITAT RESTORATION GROUP - DRAFT SALINAS RIVER LAGOON MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, VOLUME 2, TECHNICAL APPENDICES 1992-12-14
HUBNDS0003 HUBBS & SCHULTZ - UMMZ #94206 COLLECTED FROM SALINAS RIVER, AT BRIDGE BELOW BRADLEY 19XX-XX-XX JON99S0001 JONES, W. & BERNARDI - CAS #213822 COLLECTED FROM SALINAS RIVER, G17 AT SALINAS CROSSING 1999-03-04 MIL39S0031 MILLER, R. & R. MILLER - UMMZ #133202 COLLECTED FROM SALINAS RIVER, AT BRIDGE, 19.2 MI N OF KING CITY, TRIB MONTEREY BAY 1939-06-20
MIL39S0033 MILLER, R. & R. MILLER - UMMZ #133208 COLLECTED FROM SALINAS RIVER, JUST SW OF BLANCO, TRIB MONTEREY BAY 1939- 06-20
MIL41S0017 MILLER, R. & W. FOLLETT - UMMZ #137636 COLLECTED FROM NACIMIENTO RIVER, 5.7 MI NW OF SAN MIGUEL, 9.7 MI E OF BEE ROCK, TRIB SALINAS RIVER 1941-XX-XX
MIL45A0001 MILLER, R. - THE STATUS OF LAVINIA ARDESIACA, A CYPRINID FISH FROM THE PAJARO-SALINAS RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

COPEIA 1945(4): 197-204. 1945-12-31
MOY15R0001 MOYLE, P. ET AL. (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS) - FISH SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA, THIRD EDITION.

REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. 2015-07-XX SNY14A0001 SNYDER, J. - THE FISHES OF THE STREAMS TRIBUTARY TO MONTEREY BAY, CALIFORNIA. BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF FISHERIES 32: 49-72. 1914-XX-XX
Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

TAT12F0021 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2012-12-19 TAT12F0022 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2012-12-19 TAT12F0023 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2012-12-20 TAT13F0001 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2013-02-06 TAT13F0002 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2013-02-06 TAT13F0003 TATARIAN, G. (WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORYNORHINUS TOWNSENDII 2013-02-06 Map Index Number: 92256 EO Index: 93360
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AMACC08010
Occurrence Number: 400 Occurrence Last Updated: 2014-05-05 Scientific Name: Corynorhinus townsendii Common Name: Townsend's big-eared bat Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA IN A WIDE VARIETY OF HABITATS. MOST COMMON IN MESIC SITES.

ROOSTS IN THE OPEN, HANGING FROM WALLS AND CEILINGS.

ROOSTING SITES LIMITING. EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO HUMAN
DISTURBANCE.

Last Date Observed: 2013-02-06 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2013-02-06 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG ORD AVENUE, SOUTH OF RESERVATION ROAD, AND ABOUT 2.5 MI NE OF LEARY HILL.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES. DETAILED LOCATION OF FORD ORD, MARINA, CA.

Ecological:

HABITAT CONSISTED OF AN EX-MILITARY BASE UNDER REDEVELOPMENT, PARTIALLY GRADED TO THE W, COASTAL SHRUB TO THE S AND AGRICULTURE TO THE N, E AND W.

Threats:

LOSS OF ROOSTING HABITAT DUE TO DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION.

General:

FECAL SIGN DETECTED ON 19 DEC 2012 BY G. TATARIAN. FECAL SIGN DECTECTED ON 20 DEC 2012 BY G. TATARIAN. FECAL SIGN DETECTED ON 6 FEB 2013 BY G. TATARIAN.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 03, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 15 120Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.65306 / -121.72737UTM: Zone-10 N4057140 E613748 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MVZ06S0002 MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY) - PRINTOUT OF MVZ SPECIMEN RECORDS FOR REITHRODONTOMYS MEGALOTIS DISTICHLIS. 2006-01-30
VON37S0002 VON BLOEKER, J.C. - MVZ #108409 1937-05-30
Map Index Number: 10568 EO Index: 23884
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: AMAFF02032
Occurrence Number: 5 Occurrence Last Updated: 2006-01-30 Scientific Name: Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis Common Name: Salinas harvest mouse Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T1
State: S2
Other Lists:

General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

KNOWN ONLY FROM THE MONTEREY BAY REGION. OCCURS IN FRESH AND BRACKISH WATER WETLANDS AND

PROBABLY IN THE ADJACENT UPLANDS AROUND THE MOUTH OF
THE SALINAS RIVER.

Last Date Observed: 1937-05-30 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1937-05-30 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

CAMP ORD, 3.5 MILES EAST OF MARINA (MAPPED AT EAST BOUNDARY OF FORT ORD, ABOUT 2.5 MILES EAST OF MARINA).

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

MVZ #108408 (FEMALE) COLLECTED 10 JAN 1937 AND #108409 (FEMALE) COLLECTED 30 MAY 1937.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 28 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 100Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.68466 / -121.75605UTM: Zone-10 N4060612 E611139 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MVZ06S0002 MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY) - PRINTOUT OF MVZ SPECIMEN RECORDS FOR REITHRODONTOMYS MEGALOTIS DISTICHLIS. 2006-01-30
VON36S0002 VON BLOEKER, J.C. - MVZ #108420 1936-06-02
Map Index Number: 10586 EO Index: 23883
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AMAFF02032
Occurrence Number: 7 Occurrence Last Updated: 2006-01-30 Scientific Name: Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis Common Name: Salinas harvest mouse Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T1
State: S2
Other Lists:

General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

KNOWN ONLY FROM THE MONTEREY BAY REGION. OCCURS IN FRESH AND BRACKISH WATER WETLANDS AND

PROBABLY IN THE ADJACENT UPLANDS AROUND THE MOUTH OF
THE SALINAS RIVER.

Last Date Observed: 1936-06-02 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1936-06-02 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

WEST SIDE OF THE SALINAS RIVER, 5 MILES WEST OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

MVZ #108420 (FEMALE) COLLECTED 2 JUN 1936.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 33 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 50Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.67384 / -121.74690UTM: Zone-10 N4059422 E611972 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MAN17F0001 MANISCALCO, D. ET AL. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR NEOTOMA MACROTIS LUCIANA 2017-10-23 Map Index Number: B3587 EO Index: 115507
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: AMAFF08083
Occurrence Number: 8 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-07-26 Scientific Name: Neotoma macrotis luciana Common Name: Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T3
State: S3
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

FOREST HABITATS OF MODERATE CANOPY AND MODERATE TO
DENSE UNDERSTORY. ALSO IN CHAPARRAL HABITATS.

NESTS CONSTRUCTED OF GRASS, LEAVES, STICKS, FEATHERS, ETC.

POPULATION MAY BE LIMITED BY AVAILABILITY OF NEST MATERIALS.

Last Date Observed: 2017-10-23 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2017-10-23 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: CALTRANS Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG THE SALINAS RIVER JUST W OF THE CA-68 CROSSING, S OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES.

Ecological:

DRY RIVERBED SURROUNDED BY RIPARIAN VEGETATION (STREAMSIDE THICKET, MIXED WOODS). DETECTED IN MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD; NO NESTS WERE OBSERVED IN PROJECT SITE.

Threats:

ACTIVE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION SITE, UNPREDICTABLE HIGH WINTER FLOWS (2017).

General:
2 BABY WOODRATS FOUND IN TRUCK RUT IN MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD ON 23 OCT 2017. THE WOODRATS WERE TAKEN TO A WILDLIFE CARE CENTER FOR REHABILITATION.

PLSS: T15S, R03E, Sec. 18, NE (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 5 28Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63047 / -121.67392UTM: Zone-10 N4054699 E618561 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ABE96F0004 ABEL, J. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR EMYS MARMORATA 1996-08-11 WAG17F0001 WAGONER, S. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR EMYS MARMORATA 2017-07-21 Map Index Number: B2162 EO Index: 114089
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ARAAD02030
Occurrence Number: 1481 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-01-31 Scientific Name: Emys marmorata Common Name: western pond turtle Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3G4
State: S3
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

A THOROUGHLY AQUATIC TURTLE OF PONDS, MARSHES, RIVERS,

STREAMS AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, USUALLY WITH AQUATIC
VEGETATION, BELOW 6000 FT ELEVATION.

NEEDS BASKING SITES AND SUITABLE (SANDY BANKS OR GRASSY OPEN FIELDS) UPLAND HABITAT UP TO 0.5 KM FROM WATER FOR EGG-LAYING.

Last Date Observed: 2017-07-25 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2017-07-25 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: CALTRANS, UNK Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SALINAS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF THE HWY 68 BRIDGE, ABOUT 1.6 MILES WNW OF SPRECKELS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED TO INCLUDE AREA INDICATED ON MAP ATTACHED TO 1996 FIELD SURVEY FORM (E SIDE OF HWY) AND COORDINATES GIVEN FOR 2017 DETECTION (JUST WEST OF HWY).

Ecological:
1996: TURTLES OBSEVED IN OFF-CHANNEL SEWAGE TREATMENT POND; RIVER ITSELF WAS DRY; TURTLE TRACKS SEEN IN SANDY RIVERBED. 2017: DETECTED DURING BRIDGE WIDENING CONSTRUCTION; RIVER BORDERED BY WILLOW & COTTONWOOD, SURROUNDED BY AG FIELDS.

Threats:

LACK OF VEGETATIVE COVER, DRYING OF RIVER (1996). DISTURBANCE FROM CONSTRUCTION, LIMITED HABITAT AVAILABILITY (2017).

General:
3 ADULTS OBSERVED ON 11 AUG 1996. OBSERVED PERIODICALLY DURING CONSTRUCTION MONITORING, MAY-JUL 2017.

PLSS: T15S, R03E, Sec. 18, N (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 60 32Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62981 / -121.67149UTM: Zone-10 N4054629 E618779 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOF18F0004 MOFFITT, E. (LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ANNIELLA PULCHRA 2018-04-06 Map Index Number: B1997 EO Index: 113920
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ARACC01020
Occurrence Number: 378 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-01-16 Scientific Name: Anniella pulchra Common Name: Northern California legless lizard Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3
State: S2S3
Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

SANDY OR LOOSE LOAMY SOILS UNDER SPARSE VEGETATION. SOIL MOISTURE IS ESSENTIAL. THEY PREFER SOILS WITH A HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT.

Last Date Observed: 2018-04-06 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2018-04-06 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG WATKINS GATE RD ABOUT 0.2 MILES W OF RESERVATION RD, 2.5 MILES SW OF IMJIN RD AT RESERVATION RD, WEST OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

FORMER FORT ORD. FOUND ALONG CONCRETE CURB OF PAVED ROAD.

Ecological:

SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE INCLUDED COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND AND NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Threats:

VEHICLES, PETS, HUMAN INTERACTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND STROM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

General:

ONE FOUND AND PHOTOGRAPHED MOVING ALONG CONCRETE GUTTER OF WATKINS GATE RD ON 6 APR 2018.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 3, SE (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 5 96Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64995 / -121.72938UTM: Zone-10 N4056793 E613573 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CDF82U0001 CA DEPT. OF FORESTRY - B&W AERIAL PHOTOS AT 1:24,000 SCALE OF FORT ORD VICINITY PHOTO #'S (14-20)-(14-25), 1/8/82.

PHOTO #'S (16-12)-(16-18), 1/7/82. PHOTO #'S (12-17)-(12-25), 8/27/81. 1982-01-08 GRI76A0001 GRIFFIN, J.R. - NATIVE PLANT RESERVES AT FORT ORD - FREMONTIA, VOL. 4(2):25-28. 1976-07-XX HOL85F0026 HOLLAND, R.F. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CENTRAL MARITIME CHAPARRAL (NC37C20) 1985-03-20 HOO77R0001 HOOD, L. - INVENTORY OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL AREAS, CALIFORNIA NATURAL AREAS COORDINATING COUNCIL 1977-XX-XX MAT89U0001 MATHEWS, M. - LETTER TO LEON PANETTA ATTACHED TO NC37C20 OCC 3. 1989-XX-XX Map Index Number: 10517 EO Index: 16309
Key Quad: Seaside (3612157) Element Code: CTT37C20CA
Occurrence Number: 3 Occurrence Last Updated: 1998-07-14 Scientific Name: Central Maritime Chaparral Common Name: Central Maritime Chaparral Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2.2
Other Lists:

General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

Last Date Observed: 1985-03-20 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1985-03-20 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Decreasing
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD GUNNERY RANGE & VICINITY. (INCL FORMER OCCS #03-06 AT FORT ORD BOTANICAL RESERVES 1,2,5,8).

Detailed Location:

SMALL BOTANICAL RESERVES W/IN 16000 ACRE BOUNDARY FROM 1982 CDF AERIALS.

Ecological:

KNEE-SHOULDER HIGH, OPEN DENSE CHAP W/ CHAMISE, ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MONTEREYENSIS, A. TOMENTOSA SSP. CRUSTACEA, A. PUMILA, A. TOMENTOSA SSP. TOMENTOSA, CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS, C. DENTATUS, QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA.

Threats:

USED AS MILITARY SHOOTING RANGE W/LOCALIZED DISTURBANCE, ESPECIALLY IN MORTAR RANGE.

General:

SEE HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEGCAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 20 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 10,315 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.60981 / -121.76825UTM: Zone-10 N4052295 E610156 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BEC95R0001 BECHTA, S. (JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES) - REPORT OF SPECIMENS CAPTURED DURING 1993-1995 (FAIRY SHRIMP SPECIES) 1995-XX-XX
Map Index Number: 26013 EO Index: 1783
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ICBRA06010
Occurrence Number: 69 Occurrence Last Updated: 1995-11-09 Scientific Name: Linderiella occidentalis Common Name: California linderiella Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3
State: S2S3
Other Lists: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Last Date Observed: 1995-01-27 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1995-01-27 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EASTERN-MOST POOL IN MACHINE GUN FLATS; FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

CONSISTS OF A VERNAL POOL WITHIN VERNAL POOL COMPLEX.

Threats:

POSSIBLE THREAT OF DEVELOPMENT AFTER BASE CLOSURE.

General:

FEW LINDERIELLA OBSERVED DURING "QUICK LITTLE SURVEY"; SPECIES CONFIRMED BY CHRIS ROGERS-1/27/1995.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 13 450Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63522 / -121.74681UTM: Zone-10 N4055138 E612036 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BEC95R0001 BECHTA, S. (JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES) - REPORT OF SPECIMENS CAPTURED DURING 1993-1995 (FAIRY SHRIMP SPECIES) 1995-XX-XX
Map Index Number: 26012 EO Index: 1759
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: ICBRA06010
Occurrence Number: 70 Occurrence Last Updated: 1995-11-21 Scientific Name: Linderiella occidentalis Common Name: California linderiella Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3
State: S2S3
Other Lists: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Last Date Observed: 1995-02-24 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1995-02-24 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

WESTERNMOST POOL IN MACHINE GUN FLAT; FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

MIDDLE MACHINE GUN FLATS; WATER DEPTH: 29 INCHES; SURFACE AREA: ABOUT 20,000 SQ FT.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOL IN VERNAL POOL COMPLEX; SOIL/VEGETATION SUBSTRATE; VEGETATIVE TOTAL COVER: 50% OF WATER AREA (5% ALGAE, 5% FLOATING PLANTS, 85% EMERGENT PLANTS), UPLAND HABITAT CONSISTS OF OAK WOODLAND & COASTAL SCRUB; SITE SLIGHTLY TRAMPLED.

Threats:

POSSIBLE THREAT OF DEVELOPMENT AFTER BASE CLOSURE.

General:

LOW ABUNDANCE OF ADULTS AT EDGE OF POOL BECAUSE OF MANY PEOPLE NETTING, BUT HIGH ABUNDANCE IN MIDDLE; CA TIGER SALAMANDER LARVAE OBS; PACIFIC TREE FROG ADULTS & LARVAE OBS; MALLARDS AND KILLDEER PRESENT.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 8 420Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63829 / -121.75223UTM: Zone-10 N4055473 E611548 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BEC95R0001 BECHTA, S. (JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES) - REPORT OF SPECIMENS CAPTURED DURING 1993-1995 (FAIRY SHRIMP SPECIES) 1995-XX-XX
Map Index Number: 32559 EO Index: 1786
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: ICBRA06010
Occurrence Number: 71 Occurrence Last Updated: 2003-12-18 Scientific Name: Linderiella occidentalis Common Name: California linderiella Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3
State: S2S3
Other Lists: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Last Date Observed: 1995-03-24 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1995-03-24 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

BETWEEN MACHINE GUN FLATS AND EAST GARRISON; FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

POND #5; WATER DEPTH: VARIED BETWEEN 17-40 INCHES; SURFACE AREA: VARIED FROM ~20,000 TO ~300,000 SQ FEET; TURBIDITY: NONE TO SLIGHT; WATER HAS SLIGHT REDDISH TINGE TO IT; TIGER SALAMANDER LARVAE, MALLARDS, GREAT BLUE HERON, GREAT EGRET OBS.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOL WITH GRASS/VEGETATION/SOIL SUBSTRATE; MEDIUM-HIGH OVERALL VEGETATIVE COVERAGE WITH MOST BEING EMERGENT PLANTS & SOME FLOATING & SUBMERGENT PLANTS; UPLAND HABITAT CONSISTS OF ANNUAL GRASSLAND & OAK WOODLAND.

Threats:

POSSIBLE THREAT OF DEVELOPMENT AFTER BASE CLOSURE.

General:
1/26/1995: MODERATE ABUNDANCE. SHRIMP HAVE DISTINCT RED COLOR & SEEM TO BE ASSOC. W/SEED SHRIMP; 2/10/95-MODERATE ABUNDANCE-TOOK VOUCHER SPECIMEN; 2/24/95-LOW ABUNDANCE; 3/10/95-NO FAIRY SHRIMP OBS; 3/24/95-LOW ABUNDANCE; CTS LARVAE OBS.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 03 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 5 260Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64562 / -121.73937UTM: Zone-10 N4056301 E612686 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO65S0009 ANONYMOUS - BBSL #JPS3874 FROM SALINAS 1965-08-09 STE48S0004 STEVENS, B. - BBSL #OS78710 FROM SALINAS 1948-10-10 Map Index Number: 45813 EO Index: 100385
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: IIHYM24252
Occurrence Number: 269 Occurrence Last Updated: 2016-01-21 Scientific Name: Bombus occidentalis Common Name: western bumble bee Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: Candidate Endangered
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3
State: S1
Other Lists: IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

ONCE COMMON AND WIDESPREAD, SPECIES HAS DECLINED
PRECIPITOUSLY FROM CENTRAL CA TO SOUTHERN B.C., PERHAPS FROM DISEASE.

Last Date Observed: 1965-08-09 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1965-08-09 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED BY CNDDB CENTERED ON THE CITY OF SALINAS.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

COLLECTED 10 OCT 1948 AND 9 AUG 1965.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 32 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 50Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.67773 / -121.65550UTM: Zone-10 N4059965 E620134 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO04S0032 ANONYMOUS - BBSL USNM #741051, 741052 & 741053 FROM SPRECKELS 1904-08-20 Map Index Number: 98873 EO Index: 100386
Key Quad: Spreckels (3612156) Element Code: IIHYM24252
Occurrence Number: 270 Occurrence Last Updated: 2016-01-21 Scientific Name: Bombus occidentalis Common Name: western bumble bee Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank:

State: Candidate Endangered
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3
State: S1
Other Lists: IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

ONCE COMMON AND WIDESPREAD, SPECIES HAS DECLINED
PRECIPITOUSLY FROM CENTRAL CA TO SOUTHERN B.C., PERHAPS FROM DISEASE.

Last Date Observed: 1904-08-20 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1904-08-20 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SPRECKELS.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED BY CNDDB CENTERED ON THE TOWN OF SPRECKELS, SOUTH OF SALINAS.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

COLLECTED 20 AUG 1904.

PLSS: T15S, R03E, Sec. 16 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 60Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62422 / -121.64595UTM: Zone-10 N4054041 E621071 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO95S0003 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #1943 1995-07-20 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 67989 EO Index: 68117
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDAST3L080
Occurrence Number: 23 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-10-26 Scientific Name: Ericameria fasciculata Common Name: Eastwood's goldenbush Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME),
COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL DUNES.

IN SANDY OPENINGS. 30-215 M.

Last Date Observed: 1995-07-20 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1995-07-20 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

NORTH END OF FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION; VICINITY OF THE JUNCTION OF RESERVATION ROAD WITH IMJIN ROAD.

Detailed Location:
7 POLYGONS FROM SOUTH OF LANDING FIELD (NORTH OF RESERVATION RD.) TO NORTH OF INTER-GARRISON ROAD. MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1992 USACE MAP AND A 1995 COLLECTION LABEL DESCRIPTION ("FORT ORD, UC RESERVE SITE: H2.").

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1992 AND 1995.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 32 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 421 150Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.67103 / -121.76883UTM: Zone-10 N4059086 E610017 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR89S0016 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #1670 UCSC #7311 1989-06-22 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX YOR83F0009 YORK, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ERICAMERIA FASCICULATA 1983-03-06 Map Index Number: 67990 EO Index: 68118
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST3L080
Occurrence Number: 24 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-10-26 Scientific Name: Ericameria fasciculata Common Name: Eastwood's goldenbush Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME),
COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL DUNES.

IN SANDY OPENINGS. 30-215 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EASTERN PORTION OF FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS SEVERAL POLYGONS ACCORDING TO A 1992 USACE MAP.

Ecological:

IN SANDY SOIL IN MARITIME CHAPARRAL WITH ARCTOSTAPHYLOS, CEANOTHUS, AND GARRYA.

Threats:

General:

SMALL PORTION OF SITE OBSERVED IN 1983. MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS 1992 MAP DETAIL FROM USACE. A 1989 MORGAN COLLECTION FROM "E OF BARLEY CANYON RD (FORT ORD)" IS ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 15 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 2,197 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62521 / -121.72867UTM: Zone-10 N4054050 E613674 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

HOO66S0002 HOOVER, R. - HOOVER #9971 UC #1321352, CAS #491574, OBI #16178, CAS-BOT-BC #272798 1966-09-08 HOO66S0020 HOOVER, R. - HOOVER #9969 CAS #491573, OBI #16177, CAS-BOT-BC #272797 (ALSO CITED IN PRE99R0001) 1966-09-08 PRE98F0051 PRESTON, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CENTROMADIA PARRYI SSP. CONGDONII 1998-10-15 PRE99R0001 PRESTON, R. - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF CONGDON'S SPIKEWEED (HEMIZONIA PARRYI SSP.

CONGDONII) IN THE SOUTH AND EAST SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1999-02-23 Map Index Number: 25093 EO Index: 6091
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST4R0P1
Occurrence Number: 4 Occurrence Last Updated: 2011-08-31 Scientific Name: Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Common Name: Congdon's tarplant Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND. ALKALINE SOILS, SOMETIMES DESCRIBED AS HEAVY WHITE CLAY. 0- 245 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-10-15 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-10-15 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Decreasing
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

BOLSA KNOLLS, ALONG SAN JUAN GRADE ABOUT 0.4 MILE NORTHEAST OF ROGGEE ROAD, NORTH OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

ALONG WEST SIDE OF ROAD ABOUT 0.2 MILE SOUTHWEST OF ENTRANCE TO SALINAS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB.

Ecological:

RUDERAL HABITAT WITH POLYGONUM ARENASTRUM, BROMUS WILDENOVII, CONYZA BONARIENSIS, PICRIS ECHIOIDES, AND POLYPOGON MONSPELIENSIS. SOILS MAPPED AS ARROYO SECO GRAVELLY LOAM.

Threats:

ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.

General:
1 PLANT OBSERVED IN 1998. ACCORDING TO R. PRESTON, THIS SITE IS ESSENTIALLY EXTIRPATED; NO NATURAL HABITAT EXISTS IN THE AREA. HISTORIC COLLECTIONS BY R. HOOVER ARE FROM THIS SAME VICINITY.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 03, SW (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 2 140Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.73926 / -121.63335UTM: Zone-10 N4066819 E622016 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CON81S0006 CONGDON, J. - CONGDON SN UC #89054 1881-05-26 CON86S0002 CONGDON, J. - CONGDON #151 DS #3455, UC #177490, CAS-BOT-BC #123596 1886-05-26 MCM09S0004 MCMURPHY, J. - MCMURPHY #733 UC #990562, RSA #81632, DS #375389, GH #414575, CAS-BOT-BC #272794 1909-08-23 PRE98F0050 PRESTON, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CENTROMADIA PARRYI SSP. CONGDONII 1998-10-15 PRE98S0001 PRESTON, R. - PRESTON #1192 DAV #130141 (ALSO CITED IN PRE99R0001) 1998-10-15 PRE99R0001 PRESTON, R. - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF CONGDON'S SPIKEWEED (HEMIZONIA PARRYI SSP.

CONGDONII) IN THE SOUTH AND EAST SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1999-02-23 SMI07S0003 SMITH, C. - SMITH #1361 DS #280554, #3453, #3454, #520077, CAS-BOT-BC #272785, #272789-272791 (ALSO CITED IN PRE99R0001) 1907-07-04
Map Index Number: 25094 EO Index: 6093
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST4R0P1
Occurrence Number: 5 Occurrence Last Updated: 2011-08-29 Scientific Name: Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Common Name: Congdon's tarplant Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND. ALKALINE SOILS, SOMETIMES DESCRIBED AS HEAVY WHITE CLAY. 0- 245 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-10-15 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-10-15 Occurrence Rank: Poor
Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Decreasing
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SALINAS, ALONG EAST BLANCO ROAD BETWEEN HIGHWAY 101 AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED NORTH OF E BLANCO STREET ALONG WORK STREET. PLANTS FOUND IN RUDERAL STRIP ADJACENT TO SIDEWALKS.

Ecological:

RUDERAL HABITAT WITH POLYGONUM ARENASTRUM, HIRSCHFELDIA INCANA, LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM, CONYZA BONARIENSIS, PICRIS ECHIOIDES, AND CENTAUREA SOLSTITIALIS. SOILS MAPPED AS ANTIOCH VERY FINE SANDY LOAM AND CROPLEY SILTY CLAY.

Threats:

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AREA IS BEING GRADED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

General:

PROBABLE TYPE LOCALITY. 880 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1998. VARIOUS HISTORIC COLLECTIONS FROM "SALINAS" ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 34, SW (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 13 40Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.66433 / -121.63197UTM: Zone-10 N4058508 E622258 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

HAL31S0001 HALL, H. - HALL #13274 DS #672091, CAS-BOT-BC #272779 1931-10-11 MCM09S0010 MCMURPHY, J. - MCMURPHY #734 RSA #81637, DS #375329, CAS-BOT-BC #272793 1909-08-23 PRE98F0049 PRESTON, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CENTROMADIA PARRYI SSP. CONGDONII 1998-10-15 PRE99R0001 PRESTON, R. - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF CONGDON'S SPIKEWEED (HEMIZONIA PARRYI SSP.

CONGDONII) IN THE SOUTH AND EAST SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1999-02-23 Map Index Number: 25092 EO Index: 6090
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST4R0P1
Occurrence Number: 6 Occurrence Last Updated: 2015-12-21 Scientific Name: Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Common Name: Congdon's tarplant Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND. ALKALINE SOILS, SOMETIMES DESCRIBED AS HEAVY WHITE CLAY. 0- 245 M.

Last Date Observed: 1931-10-11 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-10-15 Occurrence Rank: None
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Extirpated
Location:

HALFWAY BETWEEN SALINAS AND CASTROVILLE.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS BEST GUESS ALONG HWY 183 NEAR COOPER. ANOTHER 1909 MCMURPHY COLLECTION FROM SAME LOCATION AND DATE WAS ANNOTATED TO C. PUNGENS SSP. PUNGENS BY B. BALDWIN; ID OF REMAINING SPECIMENS SHOULD BE CHECKED.

Ecological:

ROADSIDE. SLIGHTLY SALINE SOIL.

Threats:

General:

TWO COLLECTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE: HALL IN 1931 AND MCMURPHY IN 1909. AREA SEARCHED IN 1998 BY R. PRESTON; NO NATURAL HABITAT REMAINS ALONG HIGHWAY 183. RUDERAL HABITAT ALONG ROAD AND RR, BUT NO C. PARRYI SSP. CONGDONII OBSERVED.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 14 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 87 20Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.71307 / -121.71646UTM: Zone-10 N4063810 E614634 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

DEL98F0001 DELGADO, B. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR LASTHENIA CONJUGENS 1998-06-13 YAD98S0001 YADON, V. - YADON SN JEPS #94001 1998-05-25
Map Index Number: 42498 EO Index: 42498
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST5L040
Occurrence Number: 31 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-11-07 Scientific Name: Lasthenia conjugens Common Name: Contra Costa goldfields Listing Status: Federal: Endangered Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1 State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND, VERNAL POOLS, ALKALINE
PLAYAS, CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

VERNAL POOLS, SWALES, LOW DEPRESSIONS, IN OPEN GRASSY
AREAS. 1-450 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-06-13 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-06-13 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, ABOUT 0.25 MILE NORTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, SOUTHWEST OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

VERNAL POOL LOCATED ABOUT 0.33 MILE EAST OF HENNEKENS RANCH ROAD AND 0.25 MILE NORTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOL (DEPRESSION) IN GRASSLAND WITH MIMA MOUND TOPOGRAPHY. DOMINANTS: PLAGIOBOTHRYS CHORISIANUS VAR.

HICKMANII, ELEOCHARIS SP, AND ERYNGIUN ARMATUM. ARNOLD SERIES SOILS ON CLAY HARDPAN.

Threats:

EQUESTRIAN AND MOUNTAIN BIKE TRESPASS. PAST VEHICLE IMPACTS HAVE DEGRADED SITE VIA SOIL COMPACTION.

General:

ABOUT 500 PLANTS OBSERVED BY DELGADO IN 1998. SITE IS WITHIN BLM HABITAT PRESERVE. 1998 COLLECTION BY YADON FROM "FORT ORD, EAST OF HENNEKIN'S RANCH ROAD" ATTRIBUTED TO SITE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 2 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63985 / -121.74768UTM: Zone-10 N4055651 E611952 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

DEL98F0001 DELGADO, B. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR LASTHENIA CONJUGENS 1998-06-13 EME07F0001 EMERY, N. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR LASTHENIA CONJUGENS 2007-04-30 EME07F0002 EMERY, N. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR LASTHENIA CONJUGENS 2007-05-11 FOR99S0001 FORBES, H. & B. KELLER - FORBES SN JEPS #115075 1999-07-06 FOR99S0002 FORBES, H. & B. KELLER - FORBES SN JEPS #115076 1999-07-06 KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 SOL09S0005 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85191 2009-04-08 SOL09S0006 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85192 2009-04-08 SOL09S0007 SOLOMESHCH, A. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #84748, UCR #224667 2009-05-05 TAN09R0001 TANNOURJU, D.N. - ECOLOGICAL FACTORS SUITABLE FOR THE ENDANGERED LASTHENIA CONJUGENS (ASTERACEAE).

MASTER'S THESIS, SJSU 2009-08-XX
Map Index Number: 42499 EO Index: 42499
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST5L040
Occurrence Number: 32 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-09-04 Scientific Name: Lasthenia conjugens Common Name: Contra Costa goldfields Listing Status: Federal: Endangered Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1 State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND, VERNAL POOLS, ALKALINE
PLAYAS, CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

VERNAL POOLS, SWALES, LOW DEPRESSIONS, IN OPEN GRASSY
AREAS. 1-450 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM, DOD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, WEST AND SOUTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, SOUTHWEST OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

IN THE VICINITY OF BUTTERFLY VALLEY AND MACHINE GUN FLATS. 3 POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO MAPS FROM 1998 & 2007 AND 2007 KEELAN COORDINATES.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOL (DEPRESSION) IN GRASSLAND WITH MIMA MOUND TOPOGRAPHY. ASSOCIATED WITH BRODIAEA TERRESTRIS, DESCHAMPSIA DANTHONIOIDES, LASTHENIA GLABERRIMA, DANTHONIA CALIFORNICA, AND ERYNGIUM SP.

Threats:

TRACKS FROM TANKS WERE OBSERVED IN 2007 THROUGH POOLS. INTENSE SOIL DISTURBANCE FROM PIG ACTIVITY IN BUTTERFLY VALLEY.

General:

PLANTS SEEN IN 1998, 2007, AND 2008. 1999 FORBES COLLECTIONS FROM "3/4 MI N OF EUCALYPTUS RD" & "MACHINE GUN FLATS" AND 2009 SOLOMESHCH COLLECTIONS FROM "BUTTERFLY VALLEY" & "MACHINE GUN FLATS" ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS EO.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 9, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 15 500Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63377 / -121.74455UTM: Zone-10 N4054980 E612241 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

SOL09S0015 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85196 2009-04-08 SOL09S0016 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85197 2009-04-08 SOL09S0017 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #84754 2009-05-05 Map Index Number: 95101 EO Index: 96234
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDAST6E0D0
Occurrence Number: 35 Occurrence Last Updated: 2015-02-03 Scientific Name: Microseris paludosa Common Name: marsh microseris Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CISMONTANE WOODLAND,
COASTAL SCRUB, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND.
3-610 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM, UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

MACHINE GUN FLATS AND BUTTERFLY VALLEY, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS 2 POLYGONS ACCORDING TO 2009 SOLOMESHCH COORDINATES, IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOLS. SURROUNDING VEGETATION IS GRASSLAND. ASSOCIATED WITH ERYNGIUM ARMATUM, PLAGIOBOTHRYS CHORISIANUS HICKMANII, PSILOCARPHUS TENELLUS GLOBIFERUS, BRODIAEA TERRESTRIS, ISOETES HOWELLII, LASTHENIA CONJUGENS, POGOGYNE, ETC.

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE ARE TWO 2009 SOLOMESHCH ET AL. COLLECTIONS.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 10 500Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63234 / -121.74445UTM: Zone-10 N4054822 E612251 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

SOL09S0012 SOLOMESHCH, A. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #84658 2009-04-09 Map Index Number: 93085 EO Index: 94235
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDBOR0V061
Occurrence Number: 13 Occurrence Last Updated: 2014-07-09 Scientific Name: Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Common Name: Choris' popcornflower Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T1Q
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL PRAIRIE. MESIC SITES. 5-705 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-04-09 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-04-09 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, CRESCENT BLUFFS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO COORDINATES PROVIDED ON A 2009 SOLOMESHCH COLLECTION, IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 11.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOLS. SURROUNDING VEGETATION IS GRASSLAND. ASSOCIATED WITH ELEOCHARIS MACROSTACHYA, PLAGIOBOTHRYS CHORISIANUS HICKMANII, PLANTAGO CORONOPUS, AND POGOGYNE SERPYLLOIDES.

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS A 2009 SOLOMESHCH COLLECTION.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 11, NW (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 200Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64342 / -121.72261UTM: Zone-10 N4056077 E614188 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

SOL09S0013 SOLOMESHCH, A. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85494 2009-05-05 Map Index Number: 93087 EO Index: 94236
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDBOR0V061
Occurrence Number: 14 Occurrence Last Updated: 2014-07-09 Scientific Name: Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Common Name: Choris' popcornflower Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T1Q
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL PRAIRIE. MESIC SITES. 5-705 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-05-05 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, MACHINE GUN FLATS.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO COORDINATES PROVIDED ON A 2009 SOLOMESHCH COLLECTION, IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOLS. SURROUNDING VEGETATION IS GRASSLAND. ASSOCIATED WITH ERYNGIUM ARMATUM AND PSILOCARPHUS TENELLUS GLOBIFERUS.

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS A 2009 SOLOMESHCH COLLECTION.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, SE (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 520Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63281 / -121.74757UTM: Zone-10 N4054870 E611972 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

AKU12F0001 AKULOVA-BARLOW, Z. (LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ERYSIMUM AMMOPHILUM & CORDYLANTHUS RIGIDUS SSP. LITTORALIS 2012-07-16
ANO14S0003 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS #835 UCSC #9564 2014-03-30 ANONDS0073 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #2004 XXXX-XX-XX ANONDS0074 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #2005 XXXX-XX-XX MCS12U0001 MCSTAY, S. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ERYSIMUM AMMOPHILUM, CALFLORA ID #OE3255 2012-04-21 STY13S0002 STYER, D. - STYER #836 UCSC #9565 2013-04-21 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX WES94F0005 WESCO - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ERYSIMUM AMMOPHILUM 1994-05-18 Map Index Number: 28685 EO Index: 30031
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDBRA16010
Occurrence Number: 9 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-11-08 Scientific Name: Erysimum ammophilum Common Name: sand-loving wallflower Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: SB_CRES-San Diego Zoo CRES Native Gene Seed Bank
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL (MARITIME), COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB. SANDY OPENINGS. 3-320 M.

Last Date Observed: 2014-03-30 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2014-03-30 Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: UCNR-FORT ORD NR, BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, JUST EAST OF MARINA ALONG RESERVATION ROAD AND SOUTH OF AIRFIELD.

Detailed Location:

SEVERAL COLONIES ALONG EITHER SIDE OF RESERVATION ROAD FROM SEASIDE EAST ABOUT TWO MILES. INCLUDES PORTIONS OF THE UC FORT ORD NATURAL RESERVE.

Ecological:

GROWING IN COASTAL DUNES AND COASTAL DUNE SCRUB. OTHER RARE PLANTS IN THIS AREA INCLUDE GILIA TENUIFLORA ARENARIA, CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS PUNGENS, ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, AND ERIASTRUM VIRGATUM.

Threats:

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES, ROADWAY WIDENING.

General:
1992 POPULATION DENSITY VARIED FROM LOW TO HIGH, DEPENDING ON THE COLONY. ~25 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1994. TWO UNDATED ANONYMOUS COLLECTIONS, 2012 MCSTAY OBSERVATION, 2013 STYER COLLECTION, AND 2014 COLLECTION ARE ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 32 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 363 150Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.6694 / -121.76614UTM: Zone-10 N4058908 E610260 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

SOL09S0004 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85194 2009-04-08 Map Index Number: 83413 EO Index: 84429
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDCAM0C010
Occurrence Number: 82 Occurrence Last Updated: 2011-07-18 Scientific Name: Legenere limosa Common Name: legenere
Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VERNAL POOLS. IN BEDS OF VERNAL POOLS. 1-1005 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-04-08 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-04-08 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, BUTTERFLY VALLEY.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB IN VICINITY OF BUTTERFLY VALLEY, JUST SOUTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS.

COLLECTOR'S PLOT 9A.

Ecological:

VERNAL POOLS. SURROUNDING VEGETATION IS GRASSLAND. ASSOCIATED WITH BRODIAEA TERRESTRIS TERRESTRIS, ISOETES HOWELLII, PLAGIOBOTHRYS CHORISIANUS HICKMANII, LASTHENIA CONJUGENS, AND POGOGYNE SERPYLLOIDES.

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS A 2009 COLLECTION BY SOLOMESHCH ET AL.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, SE (M) Accuracy: 1/5 mile Area (acres): 0 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63198 / -121.74410UTM: Zone-10 N4054783 E612283 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CNP83M0001 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY - MAP OF FORT ORD WITH SPECIFIC LOCATIONS OF RARE PLANTS. 1983-XX-XX HOW63S0050 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #2066 PGM #5744 1963-05-08 HUB12U0004 HUBBY, K. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS HOOKERI SSP. HOOKERI, CALFLORA ID: OE4082 2012-12-16 KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 KNI86S0002 KNIGHT, W. ET AL. - KNIGHT #5271 RSA #364246 1986-02-12 MIL04S0004 MILLER, D. - MILLER SN CHSC #90068 2004-01-25 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 28441 EO Index: 21097
Key Quad: Seaside (3612157) Element Code: PDERI040J1
Occurrence Number: 5 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-01-11 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri Common Name: Hooker's manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL, COASTAL SCRUB, CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

SANDY SOILS, SANDY SHALES, SANDSTONE OUTCROPS. 30-550 M.

Last Date Observed: 2012-12-16 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2012-12-16 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: DOD-ARMY Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, MONTEREY.

Detailed Location:

LARGE OCCURRENCE MAPPED BETWEEN HWY 68 TO THE SOUTH, INTER-GARRISON ROAD TO THE NORTH, UP TO 2 MILES EAST OF BARLOY CANYON ROAD AND UP TO 3 MILES WEST OF BARLOY CANYON ROAD.

Ecological:

MARITIME CHAPARRAL WITH A. MONTEREYENSIS, A. PUMILA, AND A. TOMENTOSA. RARE TAMALIA GALLS PRESENT IN 2004.

Threats:

General:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS MAP DETAIL PROVIDED BY USACE; UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS IN 1992. UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED AT FORT ORD IN 2007 AND 2010. FEWER THAN 50 PLANTS OBSERVED AT FAR NW END OF OCCURRENCE IN 2012.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 21 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 5,310 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.61233 / -121.75808UTM: Zone-10 N4052586 E611062 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Map Index Number: 41985 EO Index: 20198
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDERI040R0
Occurrence Number: 14 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-03-03 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos montereyensis Common Name: Toro manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2?
State: S2?
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE WOODLAND, COASTAL SCRUB. SANDY SOIL, USUALLY WITH CHAPARRAL ASSOCIATES. 45-765 M.

Last Date Observed: 2012-12-16 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2012-12-16 Occurrence Rank: Excellent Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD; FROM JUNCTION OF INTERGARRISON RD AND GENERAL JIM MOORE RD EXTENDING SE TO RESERVATION BOUNDARY.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS SEVERAL POLYGONS, MOSTLY ACCORDING TO 1992 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAP. NW-MOST POLYGON IS NON-SPECIFIC BASED ON 1996 COLLECTION. YADON'S 2000 COLLECTIONS FROM PARKER FLATS RD ARE IDENTIFIED AS A. PAJAROENSIS X A.

MONTEREYENSIS.

Ecological:

MARITIME CHAPARRAL.

Threats:

NW PORTION OF SITE MAY BE IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT.

General:

THIS IS THE LARGEST KNOWN OCCURRENCE OF A. MONTEREYENSIS. PLANT DENSITY LOW TO HIGH IN 1992, DEPENDING ON COLONY. LARGE NUMBERS OBSERVED IN 2012. INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE #5. COLLECTIONS FROM 1967-2008 ARE ATTRIBUTED HERE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 16 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 6,237 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62586 / -121.74638UTM: Zone-10 N4054100 E612089 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO96S0010 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #8513 1996-04-29 HAL08S0012 HALL, B. ET AL. - HALL #BH6065 UCSC #10706, 10709, 10713, 10752, 10756 2008-XX-XX HOW67S0001 HOWELL, J. - HOWELL #42042-42047 CAS #475696-475701 1967-03-15 HOW67S0027 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #2068 PGM #5749 1967-03-15 HOW67S0098 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #2068 CAS #466578 1967-05-08 HUB12U0005 HUBBY, K. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MONTEREYENSIS, CALFLORA ID: OE4080 2012-12-16 KEE94S0002 KEELEY, J. - KEELEY #25408-25412 RSA #633177, 633179, 633182-633184 1994-07-05 KNI86S0003 KNIGHT, W. ET AL. - KNIGHT #5269 RSA #364247, CAS #740364 1986-02-12 MASNDM0001 MASSERA, J. - MAP OF FORT ORD WITH RARE PLANT LIST XXXX-XX-XX SAN03S0051 SANDER, C. - SANDER #33007 HSC #97742 2003-06-23 STO02S0002 STONE, J. - STONE #3360 MO #1751347 2002-06-06 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX WAL75S0008 WALLACE, G. - WALLACE #1427 RSA #254301 1975-05-10 YAD00S0013 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #3973 2000-01-23
YAD00S0014 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #4781 2000-05-19
Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

STY09S0001 STYER, D. - STYER #200 UCSC #10160 2009-02-09 Map Index Number: A8015 EO Index: 109808
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDERI04100
Occurrence Number: 28 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-01-09 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos pajaroensis Common Name: Pajaro manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CHAPARRAL. SANDY SOILS. 30-170 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-02-09 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-02-09 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

TRAIL 15, FORT ORD NATIONAL MONUMENT (REGION J5).

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS ALONG TRAIL 15.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS A 2009 STYER COLLECTION. NEEDS FIELDWORK.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 10, NW (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 61 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64275 / -121.73684UTM: Zone-10 N4055985 E612917 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Map Index Number: 67536 EO Index: 20158
Key Quad: Seaside (3612157) Element Code: PDERI04180
Occurrence Number: 2 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-07-21 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos pumila Common Name: sandmat manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND, COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB.

ON SANDY SOIL WITH OTHER CHAPARRAL ASSOCIATES. 3-210 M.

Last Date Observed: 2015-12-30 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2015-12-30 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM, CITY OF MONTEREY, PVT Trend: Increasing Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD; ALONG SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BORDERS OF FORMER MILITARY RESERVE, NORTH TO PARKER FLATS AND EAST TO ELLIOTT HILL.

Detailed Location:

EXTENSIVE OCCURRENCE MAPPED PRIMARILY ACCORDING TO A 1992 MAP FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ALSO INCLUDES TWO POLYGONS JUST WEST OF FORD ORD BOUNDARY IN DEL MONTE HEIGHTS/DEL REY OAKS AREA. INCLUDES VAGUE "FORT ORD" COLLECTIONS/OBS.

Ecological:

MARITIME CHAPARRAL, COASTAL DUNE SCRUB. ASSOCIATED WITH A. TOMENTOSA SSP. TOMENTOSA, ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM, ERICAMERIA ERICOIDES, HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA, CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS, ETC. PRESCRIBED FIRE WENT THROUGH THIS AREA IN 2005.

Threats:

DEVELOPMENT, FUELBREAK MAINTENANCE, ROADSIDE SPRAYING OF HERBICIDE (UNLIKELY), ROAD MAINTENANCE (UNLIKELY).

General:

PLANT DENSITY REPORTED AS MEDIUM TO HIGH THROUGHOUT A MAJORITY OF THIS MAPPED AREA IN 1992. INCREASES IN A. PUMILA DENSITY FOUND FROM 2004 TO 2015. MANY HISTORIC COLLECTIONS ATTRIBUTED HERE. INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCES #18 AND 19.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 19 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 7,569 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.60986 / -121.78963UTM: Zone-10 N4052276 E608244 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO95S0002 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #2056 1995-05-XX ANO95S0013 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #2054 & #2055 1995-05-27 BLA89S0001 BLAUER, A. - BLAUER #84-89 SEINET #8513227 1989-07-22 CNP83M0001 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY - MAP OF FORT ORD WITH SPECIFIC LOCATIONS OF RARE PLANTS. 1983-XX-XX GAN58S0002 GANKIN, R. - GANKIN #302 & #303 CAS #475906, SBBG #25403, DAV #53737, #53738, #53740 1958-06-20 GRE90U0014 GREENHOUSE, J. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALFLORA ID: JGR13944 1990-04-25 GRE97U0007 GREENHOUSE, J. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALFLORA ID: JGR25773 1997-01-19 HOW67S0026 HOWE, D. - HOWE #4341 & #4344 SD #67321, SDSU #2824 1967-04-12 HRU87S0001 HRUSA, G. - HRUSA #5386-5389 CHSC #59313, DAV #53733 & #53734, UCR #74387 1987-06-08 HUB12U0006 HUBBY, K. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALFLORA ID: OE4081 2012-12-16 JEP13S0008 JEPSON, W. - JEPSON #5702 JEPS #38607, A #362070, GH #362030 1913-11-29 KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 KRA15I0007 KRAMER, N. - PHOTOS OF ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0116 1169 & 1170 2015-12-30 KRA88F0006 KRATTER, A. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA 1988-12-14 MASNDM0001 MASSERA, J. - MAP OF FORT ORD WITH RARE PLANT LIST XXXX-XX-XX MAT87F0003 MATTHEWS, C. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ERICAMERIA FASCICULATA & ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA 1987-10-24 MIL04S0005 MILLER, D. - MILLER SN CHSC #90053 2004-01-25 PIE16R0001 PIERCE, L. ET AL. - THE PARKER FLATS PRESCRIBED BURN: 10TH YEAR POST-FIRE VEGETATION RECOVERY IN 2015. 2016-03- XX
POS95I0002 POST, D. - PHOTO OF ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0802 0252 1995-01-15 SAN03S0052 SANDER, C. - SANDER #33011 HSC #97667 2003-06-24 SCH04I0014 SCHUSTEFF, A. - PHOTOS OF ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0404 0941, 0957, 0959, 0970, 0973 2004-04- 18 STY09F0001 STYER, D. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA & PIPERIA YADONII 2009-07-01 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX WOO13S0002 WOODCOCK, F. - WOODCOCK SN JEPS #38608, A #362071, GH #362031 1913-04-08 Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Map Index Number: A5169 EO Index: 106873
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDERI04180
Occurrence Number: 15 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-06-30 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos pumila Common Name: sandmat manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND, COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB.

ON SANDY SOIL WITH OTHER CHAPARRAL ASSOCIATES. 3-210 M.

Last Date Observed: 2017-01-28 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2017-01-28 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: UCNR, CITY OF MARINA, DPR, UNK Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

NORTH END OF FORT ORD IN VICINITY OF MARINA, AND ALONG WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 BETWEEN LAKE DR AND 8TH ST.

Detailed Location:

SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED BY CNDDB, MOSTLY ACCORDING TO A 1992 USACE MAP AND 2014 DIGITAL DATA FROM ESA. INCLUDES VAGUE COLLECTIONS FROM MARINA, RESERVATION ROAD, "1 1/2 MI NNW OF GIGLING," "N RESERVE, FORT ORD," ETC.

Ecological:

COASTAL DUNE SCRUB. SANDY SOIL ASSOCIATED WITH RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA, SALVIA MELLIFERA, BACCHARIS PILULARIS, ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERICAMERIA FASCICULATA, LOTUS SCOPARIUS, TOXICODENDRON DIVERSILOBUM, CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS, ETC.

Threats:

ORVS, ROADWAY WIDENING, DEVELOPMENT, INVASIVE SPECIES, MAINTENANCE.

General:

DENSITY OF PLANTS ON FORD ORD RANGED FROM LOW TO HIGH IN 1992, HIGHEST DENSITY PORTIONS NEAR THE AIRPORT. 90+ PLANTS SEEN ON WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 IN 2013. SEEN IN 2008, 2015, 2016, & 2017. INCLUDES FORMER EO #17.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 31 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 2,073 100Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.66828 / -121.78089UTM: Zone-10 N4058767 E608944 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

AKU15I0001 AKULOVA, Z. - PHOTO OF ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0215 3547 2015-02-XX AXE36S0001 AXELROD, D. - AXELROD #665 RSA #141375 1936-08-19 CHA17U0002 CHASEY, A. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALFLORA ID: MG35065 2017-01-28 ESA14D0001 ESA - EXCEL TABLE AND SHAPEFILES FOR SURVEY WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT IN 2012 AND 2013 2014-XX-XX
GIL00S0003 GILLESPIE, I. - GILLESPIE #17 UCR #120819 2000-04-22 GRA03F0006 GRAFF, A. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ERICAMERIA FASCICULATA & ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA & CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS & PIPERIA YADONII & PIPERIA MICHAELII 2003-07-03
GRE95S0002 GREY - GREY SN UCSC #2057 1995-04-XX
HOO41S0066 HOOVER, R. - HOOVER #4775 UC #762306, GH #362062 1941-03-09 HOO62S0005 HOOVER, R. - HOOVER #8534 CAS #475899 & #475900, OBI #14529 1962-03-10 HOO68S0033 HOOVER, R. - HOOVER #33 OBI #3256 1968-04-11 KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 KEI03S0006 KEIL, D. - KEIL #30258-1 & #30268-1 OBI #67052 & #67066, UC #1873003 2003-05-28 KNI86S0015 KNIGHT, W. - KNIGHT #5261 CAS #740044 1986-01-08 KRE03F0003 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUFLORA SSP. ARENARIA, CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS & ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA 2003-05-13
TAY16I0005 TAYLOR, D. - PHOTO OF ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0316 0936 2016-03-11 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX VAN38S0010 VAN RENSSELAER, M. - VAN RENSSELAER SN SBBG #5396 1938-04-21 VAN80R0002 VANDERWIER, J. - REPORT AND FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA. 1980-06-14 WES94F0006 WESCO - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA 1994-05-18 YAD06S0005 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #7508 2006-08-29
Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: A5171 EO Index: 106876
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDERI04180
Occurrence Number: 21 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-06-30 Scientific Name: Arctostaphylos pumila Common Name: sandmat manzanita Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND, COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB.

ON SANDY SOIL WITH OTHER CHAPARRAL ASSOCIATES. 3-210 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM, MNT COUNTY Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SOUTH SIDE OF WATKINS GATE ROAD, JUST WEST OF EAST GARRISON AND NORTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1992 USACE MAP.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

LOW DENSITY OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN THIS AREA IN 1992.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 4, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 124 300Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64814 / -121.74358UTM: Zone-10 N4056575 E612307 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ABB82S0001 ABBOTT, E. - ABBOTT SN CAS #63065 1882-XX-XX ABB89S0005 ABBOTT, E. - ABBOTT SN UNKNOWN HERBARIUM (CITED IN LIS88U0001) 1889-04-XX LIS88U0001 LISTON, A. - LIST OF ASTRAGALUS TENER VAR. TENER COLLECTIONS. 1988-11-17 WIT02R0001 WITHAM, C. - ALKALINE VERNAL POOL MILK-VETCH STATUS SURVEY REPORT 2002-09-11 Map Index Number: 24658 EO Index: 6914
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDFAB0F8R1
Occurrence Number: 1 Occurrence Last Updated: 2013-07-02 Scientific Name: Astragalus tener var. tener Common Name: alkali milk-vetch Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2T1
State: S1
Other Lists: SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

ALKALI PLAYA, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND, VERNAL POOLS. LOW GROUND, ALKALI FLATS, AND FLOODED LANDS; IN ANNUAL GRASSLAND OR IN PLAYAS OR VERNAL POOLS. 0-170 M.

Last Date Observed: 1889-04-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1889-04-XX Occurrence Rank: None
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Location:
1-2 MILES NORTHEAST OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB AROUND 1 TO 2 AIR MILES NORTHEAST OF SALINAS BASED ON AN 1882 COLLECTION FROM "2 MI NE FROM SALINAS" AND AN 1889 COLLECTION FROM "SALINAS, 1 MI NE." Ecological:

GROWING IN LOW GROUNDS.

Threats:

DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURE?
General:

BASED ON 1882 AND 1889 COLLECTIONS BY ABBOTT. WITHAM REVIEWED MAPS AND SPOT IMAGERY FOR THIS VICINITY IN 2002 & FOUND AREA ALL DEVELOPED AND/OR EXTENSIVE ROW CROP AGRICULTURE. PROBABLY EXTIRPATED.

PLSS: T14S, R03E, Sec. 21 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 60Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.69692 / -121.63663UTM: Zone-10 N4062118 E621790 Monterey Natividad (3612165), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

YAD98F0002 YADON, V. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR TRIFOLIUM BUCKWESTIORUM 1998-05-07 YAD98S0003 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #3955 1998-05-07
Map Index Number: 40861 EO Index: 40861
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDFAB402W0
Occurrence Number: 10 Occurrence Last Updated: 2008-12-16 Scientific Name: Trifolium buckwestiorum Common Name: Santa Cruz clover Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
SB_USDA-US Dept of Agriculture
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL PRAIRIE, BROADLEAFED UPLAND FOREST, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND.

MOIST GRASSLAND. GRAVELLY MARGINS. 30-805 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-05-07 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-05-07 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG RESERVATION ROAD ABOUT 0.5 AIR MILE WEST OF JUNCTION WITH HIGHWAY 68, FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RES, SW OF SALINAS.

Detailed Location:

FOUND IN WET AREA WEST OF ROAD ALONG ENGINEERS CANYON ROAD.

Ecological:

GROWING IN WET DRAINAGE.

Threats:

General:

SITE VERY SMALL; PERHAPS OTHERS IN VICINITY.

PLSS: T15S, R03E, Sec. 18, NW (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 100Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62574 / -121.68972UTM: Zone-10 N4054155 E617155 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR98S0004 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #3261 UCSC #8704 1998-06-06 YAD98S0004 YADON, V. - YADON SN JEPS #94002 1998-05-25
YAD98S0005 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #4264, #4265 1998-05-26 Map Index Number: 73141 EO Index: 74072
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDFAB402W0
Occurrence Number: 11 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-12-01 Scientific Name: Trifolium buckwestiorum Common Name: Santa Cruz clover Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
SB_USDA-US Dept of Agriculture
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL PRAIRIE, BROADLEAFED UPLAND FOREST, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND.

MOIST GRASSLAND. GRAVELLY MARGINS. 30-805 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-06-06 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-06-06 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EAST OF HENNEKIN'S (HENNEKEN'S) RANCH ROAD, FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB IN THE VICINITY OF HENNEKEN RANCH ROAD AND TO THE EAST OF THE ROAD.

Ecological:

GROWING IN VERNAL AREAS.

Threats:

General:

SITE BASED ON A 1998 YADON COLLECTION. ANOTHER 1998 YADON COLLECTION FROM "HENNIKEN RANCH ROAD, EAST OF HENNIKEN FLATS" AND A 1998 MORGAN COLLECTION FROM "ROADSIDE N? OF MACHINE GUN FLATS" ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THIS OCCURRENCE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09 (M) Accuracy: 3/5 mile Area (acres): 0 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63817 / -121.74925UTM: Zone-10 N4055463 E611813 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 STY16S0001 STYER, D. - STYER SN UCSC #010636-010639 2016-04-29 Map Index Number: A7334 EO Index: 109102
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDFAB402W0
Occurrence Number: 25 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-04-02 Scientific Name: Trifolium buckwestiorum Common Name: Santa Cruz clover Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
SB_USDA-US Dept of Agriculture
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL PRAIRIE, BROADLEAFED UPLAND FOREST, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND.

MOIST GRASSLAND. GRAVELLY MARGINS. 30-805 M.

Last Date Observed: 2016-04-29 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2016-04-29 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

ALONG JACKS ROAD/EUCALYPTUS ROAD AT THE EAST END OF MUDHEN LAKE, FORT ORD NATIONAL MONUMENT.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013 KEELAN COORDINATES AND 2016 STYER COORDINATES, IN THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 15.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2008 AND 2016.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 15, NE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 9 150Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62762 / -121.72908UTM: Zone-10 N4054316 E613634 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CAL18D0001 CALLOWAY, S. (SANTA BARBARA BOTANIC GARDEN) - SANTA BARBARA BOTANIC GARDEN RARE PLANT TABLE, 2017. 2018-01- 17 CPR19U0001 CALIFORNIA PLANT RESCUE - SEED BANK DATA FOR THE CALIFORNIA PLANT RESCUE PROJECT 2019-07-24 Map Index Number: B2807 EO Index: 114741
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDFAB402W0
Occurrence Number: 51 Occurrence Last Updated: 2019-12-12 Scientific Name: Trifolium buckwestiorum Common Name: Santa Cruz clover Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
SB_USDA-US Dept of Agriculture
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL PRAIRIE, BROADLEAFED UPLAND FOREST, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND.

MOIST GRASSLAND. GRAVELLY MARGINS. 30-805 M.

Last Date Observed: 2017-05-25 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2017-05-25 Occurrence Rank: Excellent Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

APPROXIMATELY 0.5 AIR MILE EAST OF MUDHEN LAKE, PILARCITOS RIDGE.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO SANTA BARBARA BOTANIC GARDEN DATA, NEAR THE CENTER OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14.

Ecological:

OPENING IN OAK WOODLAND WITH BRIZA MAXIMA, TRITELEIA IXIOIDES SSP. IXIOIDES, QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA, JUNCUS PHAEOCEPHALUS, AND TRIFOLIUM MICROCEPHALUS SSP. GRACILENTUM.

Threats:

POTENTIAL WEED INVASIONS.

General:
100+ PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2017. MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER T. BUCKWESTIORUM IN SANTA CRUZ ACCORDING TO DAVID STYRE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 14, NW (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 5 380Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62733 / -121.72074UTM: Zone-10 N4054294 E614379 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

ANO95S0010 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS SN UCSC #2199 1995-04-15 ANONDS0124 ANONYMOUS - ANONYMOUS #2195 UCSC #2195, #2196, #2198, & #3541 XXXX-XX-XX BAR07S0001 BARON, S. - BARON SN SJSU #15181 2007-04-24
BAR07S0002 BARON, S. - BARON SN SJSU #15182 2007-04-24
CHM04R0001 CH2MHILL - RESULTS OF 2004 MONTEREY SPINEFLOWER AND SAND GILIA SURVEYS, OU-1, FORMER FT. ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR HYDRO GEOLOGIC, INC. 2004-06-XX
DEN14R0001 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. - 2013 ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 46PP. 2014-03-XX DEN17R0001 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. - 2016 ANNUAL RARE PLANT SURVEY AND BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE

AHTNA MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND EISB DEPLOYMENT AREA CONSTRUCTION AT THE OUCTP 2017-03-XX
FER19S0002 FERGUSON, E. ET AL. - FERGUSON #268 JEPS #57716 1919-06-19 FOR11F0015 FORBES, H. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2011-08-16 Map Index Number: 67825 EO Index: 29609
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDPGN040M2
Occurrence Number: 2 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-05-01 Scientific Name: Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Common Name: Monterey spineflower Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DUNES, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE WOODLAND, COASTAL
SCRUB, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND.

SANDY SOILS IN COASTAL DUNES OR MORE INLAND WITHIN
CHAPARRAL OR OTHER HABITATS. 3-270 M.

Last Date Observed: 2016-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2016-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD, PVT Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION; FROM MARINA EAST TO BARLOW CANYON ROAD AND SOUTH TO S BOUNDARY OF BASE (NEAR HWY 68).

Detailed Location:

LARGE OCCURRENCE ENCOMPASSING MOST OF FORT ORD. MAPPED PRIMARILY ACCORDING TO A 1992 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAP.

INCLUDES GENERAL "FORT ORD" COLLECTIONS/OBSERVATIONS. MOST RECENT OBSERVATIONS ARE FROM THE NORTHERN PORTION OF OCCURRENCE.

Ecological:

COASTAL DUNE/MARITIME CHAPARRAL; OAK WOODLAND TRANSITION. OPEN SANDY AREAS. ASSOCIATED WITH BROMUS DIANDRUS, LUPINUS BICOLOR, PLANTAGO CORONOPUS, LOTUS HUMISTRATUS, CARDIONEMA RAMOSISSIMUM, AVENA BARBATA, ERODIUM CICUTARIUM, ETC.

Threats:

ORVS, POTENTIAL ROAD WIDENING, INVASIVES (ICEPLANT, ETC.), PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT, SHADING, SUCCESSION, TRESPASSING.

General:

POP NUMBERS FOR PARTS OF OCCURRENCE: SEEN THROUGHOUT OCC IN 1992, >200 PLANTS IN 1994, 19,700 IN 2003, 40,000 IN 2004, 1800 IN 2006, 5180+ IN 2009, >5000 IN 2011, SEEN IN 2012-2016. INCLUDES FORMER OCC #S 11, 22, 23, 24; C. ROBUSTA #22.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 7 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 10,832 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.6337 / -121.78075UTM: Zone-10 N4054930 E609004 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
GIL00S0004 GILLESPIE, I. - GILLESPIE #16 UCR #120818 2000-04-22 HAC04F0003 HACKER, D. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2004-06-08 JHO91S0001 JHON - JHON SN UCSC #2188, #2189, & #2190 1991-04-30 JHO92S0001 JHON - JHON SN UCSC #2201 1992-03-31
JHO95S0001 JHON - JHON SN UCSC #2164 1995-05-03
JHO96S0001 JHON - JHON SN UCSC #2191, #2192, #2193, #2194, & #2197 1996-04-19 KRE03F0002 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2003-05-13 KRE03F0004 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2003-05-19 KRE03F0006 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2003-05-13 KRE09F0004 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ANNIELLA PULCHRA NIGRA & CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS & GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 2009-06-12
LFR10R0001 LFR, WESTON, & WESTCLIFFE - 2009 ANNUAL NATURAL RESOURCE MONITORING, MITIGATION, AND MANAGEMENT REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PREPARED FOR FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY. 109PP. 2010-02-05 MCS14U0001 MCSTAY, S. - OBSERVATION RECORD FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS, CALFLORA ID: CBO23601 2014-05-23 MOR06F0035 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-14 MOR06F0036 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-14 MOR06F0039 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-21 MOR06F0040 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-21 MOR06F0041 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-21 MOR06F0042 MORGAN, R. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2006-09-21 MOR89S0006 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #1611 UCSC #7071 1989-05-13 MOR95S0006 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #2640 UCSC #7067 1995-05-22 PIE16R0001 PIERCE, L. ET AL. - THE PARKER FLATS PRESCRIBED BURN: 10TH YEAR POST-FIRE VEGETATION RECOVERY IN 2015. 2016-03- XX
PRE09F0013 PRESTON, R. (JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2009- 06-03
PRE09F0014 PRESTON, R. (JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES) - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 2009- 06-03
REV87S0002 REVEAL, J. & C. BROOME - REVEAL #6441 RSA #491743, CAS #800584, CAS-BOT-BC #257400 1987-06-14 REV88S0001 REVEAL, J. - REVEAL #6952 RSA #489235, CAS #800487, CAS-BOT-BC #257418 1988-05-30 REV88S0002 REVEAL, J. - REVEAL #6953 RSA #489236, CAS #800488, CAS-BOT-BC #257401 1988-05-30 REV88S0003 REVEAL, J. - REVEAL #6951 RSA #489234, CAS #800486, NY #32494, CAS-BOT-BC #257417 1988-05-30 SHA08R0001 SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. - 2007 ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 2008-02-XX
USA06U0001 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - EMAIL REGARDING CORRECTIONS TO USA92R0001. 2006-08-10 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX WES94F0002 WESCO - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS VAR. PUNGENS 1994-05-18 Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

BAR07S0003 BARON, S. - BARON SN SJSU #15180 2007-04-24
USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 97249 EO Index: 98515
Key Quad: Spreckels (3612156) Element Code: PDPGN040M2
Occurrence Number: 33 Occurrence Last Updated: 2015-08-18 Scientific Name: Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Common Name: Monterey spineflower Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DUNES, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE WOODLAND, COASTAL
SCRUB, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND.

SANDY SOILS IN COASTAL DUNES OR MORE INLAND WITHIN
CHAPARRAL OR OTHER HABITATS. 3-270 M.

Last Date Observed: 2007-04-24 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2007-04-24 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

PICNIC CANYON; SOUTH OF SANDSTONE RIDGE, NORTH OF PILARCITOS CANYON, AND WEST OF PILARCITOS RIDGE, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1992 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAP.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

LOW DENSITY OF PLANTS SEEN HERE IN 1992. A 2007 BARON COLLECTION FROM "CRESCENT BLUFF ROAD, FORT ORD" IS ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS OCCURRENCE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 15, E (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 256 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.61994 / -121.73220UTM: Zone-10 N4053461 E613365 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR94S0013 MORGAN, R. - MOGAN #2237 UCSC #5830 1994-05-12 Map Index Number: A4901 EO Index: 106597
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDPGN04100
Occurrence Number: 1 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-05-31 Scientific Name: Chorizanthe minutiflora Common Name: Fort Ord spineflower Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL SCRUB, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME). SANDY, OPENINGS. 60-145 M.

Last Date Observed: 1994-05-12 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1994-05-12 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

CRESCENT BLUFF ROAD, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB ALONG CRESCENT BLUFF RD, BASED ON A 1994 MORGAN COLLECTION.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS A 1994 MORGAN COLLECTION. NEEDS FIELDWORK.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 11 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 168 200Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64052 / -121.71653UTM: Zone-10 N4055763 E614736 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR10S0003 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #4981 UCSC #7402 2010-05-03 MOR14A0001 MORGAN, R. ET AL. - CHORIZANTHE MINUTIFLORA (POLYGONACEAE: ERIOGONEAE), A NEW NARROW ENDEMIC CALIFORNIA SPECIES. PHYTONEURON 2014-63:1-9. 2014-06-16
STY14S0002 STYER, D. & R. MORGAN - STYER SN UC, BH, CAS, GH, NY, RSA, US, UTC (CITED IN MOR14A0001) 2014-05-24 STY14S0003 STYER, D. - STYER SN BH, RSA, UC (CITED IN MOR14A0001) 2014-05-05 TAY16I0004 TAYLOR, D. - PHOTOS OF CHORIZANTHE MINUTIFLORA, CALPHOTOS ID: 0000 0000 0516 2344-2346 2016-05-27 TAY16S0001 TAYLOR, D. & D. STYER - TAYLOR #21688 HERBARIUM UNKNOWN 2016-05-27 Map Index Number: A4902 EO Index: 106598
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDPGN04100
Occurrence Number: 2 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-07-17 Scientific Name: Chorizanthe minutiflora Common Name: Fort Ord spineflower Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL SCRUB, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME). SANDY, OPENINGS. 60-145 M.

Last Date Observed: 2016-05-27 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2016-05-27 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: DOD-FORT ORD NM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

BUTTERFLY VALLEY ABOUT 0.65 AIR MILE NE OF ELLIOTT HILL AND 0.2 MI SSE OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB FROM 2014 & 2016 COORDINATES, IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF PROJECTED SECTION 9.

Ecological:

ON EXPOSED, SPARSELY VEGETATED SAND AT EDGE OF FORMERLY DISTURBED ROAD BEDS AND TRAILS, IN PATCHY CHAPARRAL OF SALVIA MELLIFERA, ERIODICTYON CALIFORNICUM, QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA AND BACCHARIS PILULARIS.

Threats:

SOME DISTURBANCE IN THIS AREA APPEARS TO BE BENEFICIAL SO IT DOESN'T BECOME OVERGROWN.

General:

TYPE LOCALITY. SITE DISCOVERED IN 2010, ALSO VISITED IN 2014 & 2016. NEEDS POPULATION INFORMATION.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 9, SE (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 5 470Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.6331 / -121.7438UTM: Zone-10 N4054907 E612309 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

HOW67S0030 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #2063 PGM #6485, CAS #466577, CAS-BOT-BC #226411 1967-05-08 MOR96U0003 MOREY, S. - COASTAL PLANTS RECOVERY WORKSHOP SUMMARY 1996-12-17 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 27796 EO Index: 16991
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDPLM041P2
Occurrence Number: 14 Occurrence Last Updated: 2007-04-12 Scientific Name: Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Common Name: Monterey gilia Listing Status: Federal: Endangered Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3G4T2
State: S2
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME),
CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

SANDY OPENINGS IN BARE, WIND-SHELTERED AREAS. OFTEN NEAR DUNE SUMMIT OR IN THE HIND DUNES; TWO RECORDS FROM
PLEISTOCENE INLAND DUNES. 5-245 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FT ORD; FROM NR CLAUSENS RNCH, SW TO BOTH SIDES BARLOY CYN RD, E TO JCT PILARCITOS CYN RD/JACKS RD, S TO IMPOSSIBLE CYN.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS 5 NONSPECIFIC BOUNDED AREAS. NEAR JUNCTION OF THE SALINAS, SPECKELS, AND SEASIDE USGS TOPO QUADRANGLES.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

JOEY DORRELL-CANEPA BELIEVES PLANTS HERE ARE LIKELY INTERGRADES W/SSP. TENUIFLORA. STUDIES NEEDED. 1967 HOWITT COLLECTION FROM "BARLOY CANYON NEAR EUCALYPTUS RD" ATTRIBUTED TO THIS OCCURRENCE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 15 (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 1,185 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62328 / -121.73738UTM: Zone-10 N4053825 E612897 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Seaside (3612157), Salinas (3612166) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

FWS08R0008 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - MONTEREY GILIA (GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA) 5-YEAR REVIEW: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 2008-03-XX
MOR96U0003 MOREY, S. - COASTAL PLANTS RECOVERY WORKSHOP SUMMARY 1996-12-17 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 27799 EO Index: 16989
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDPLM041P2
Occurrence Number: 15 Occurrence Last Updated: 2015-11-16 Scientific Name: Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Common Name: Monterey gilia Listing Status: Federal: Endangered Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3G4T2
State: S2
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME),
CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

SANDY OPENINGS IN BARE, WIND-SHELTERED AREAS. OFTEN NEAR DUNE SUMMIT OR IN THE HIND DUNES; TWO RECORDS FROM
PLEISTOCENE INLAND DUNES. 5-245 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION; VICINITY OF EAST GARRISON. BORDERED ON N BY WATKINS GATE RD, AND EXTENDING S FOR 0.25 MI.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

Threats:

PORTIONS OF SITE UNDER DEVELOPMENT THREAT ACCORDING TO 2008 USFWS REPORT.

General:

ONLY INFO IS VAGUE MAP IN "FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD." FIELDWORK CONDUCTED BY JONES AND STOKES ASSOC., INC. JOEY DORRELL-CANEPA BELIEVES PLANTS HERE ARE LIKELY INTERGRADES W/SSP. TENUIFLORA. STUDIES NEEDED.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 04, SE (M) Accuracy: non-specific area Area (acres): 69 250Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64913 / -121.74486UTM: Zone-10 N4056684 E612191 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Map Index Number: 27791 EO Index: 423
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDPLM041P2
Occurrence Number: 20 Occurrence Last Updated: 2018-12-28 Scientific Name: Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Common Name: Monterey gilia Listing Status: Federal: Endangered Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2 State: Threatened
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G3G4T2
State: S2
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL DUNES, COASTAL SCRUB, CHAPARRAL (MARITIME),
CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

SANDY OPENINGS IN BARE, WIND-SHELTERED AREAS. OFTEN NEAR DUNE SUMMIT OR IN THE HIND DUNES; TWO RECORDS FROM
PLEISTOCENE INLAND DUNES. 5-245 M.

Last Date Observed: 2017-06-02 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2018-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Fair
Owner/Manager: UCNR-FORT ORD NR, PVT Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORMERLY FORT ORD MR; FROM N SIDE OF INTER-GARRISON RD EXTENDING N WITHIN MILITARY BOUNDARY TO MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS MANY POLYGONS. MARINA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FORMERLY CALLED FRITZSCHE AIRFIELD, LABELED "LANDING FIELD" ON TOPO MAPS. MONTEREY COUNTY PARKS IS ALSO PART OWNER. INCLUDES 2006 MORGAN COLLECTION FROM "FORT ORD, UC RESERVE SITE: P1 & P2."
Ecological:

OTHER RARE PLANTS IN THE AREA: CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS PUNGENS, ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA, ERIASTRUM VIRGATUM, & ERYSIMUM AMMOPHILUM.

Threats:

PAST GRADING, ROAD WIDENING. PLANTS ON LANDFILL PROPERTY TO BE EXTIRPATED, WITH TRANSLOCATION AS MITIGATION. INVASIVES.

General:
45,590 PLANTS IN 1993. 2 MILLION+ IN 1995. AVERAGE OF 59,300 PLANTS DURING 1999-2002 SURVEYS (NOT FULL CENSUSES). PORTIONS OF SITE: 25 IN 1994, 1320+ IN 2003, 2850+ IN 2004, 528 IN 2007, SEEN IN 2008-2013, 2015-2017, NONE IN 2018.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 32 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 515 150Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.6734 / -121.76788UTM: Zone-10 N4059349 E610099 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

CAN94R0001 CANEPA, J. - POPULATION BIOLOGY OF GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA. 1994-12-01 CHM04R0001 CH2MHILL - RESULTS OF 2004 MONTEREY SPINEFLOWER AND SAND GILIA SURVEYS, OU-1, FORMER FT. ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR HYDRO GEOLOGIC, INC. 2004-06-XX
DEN14R0001 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. - 2013 ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 46PP. 2014-03-XX DEN17R0001 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. - 2016 ANNUAL RARE PLANT SURVEY AND BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE

AHTNA MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND EISB DEPLOYMENT AREA CONSTRUCTION AT THE OUCTP 2017-03-XX
FWS08R0008 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - MONTEREY GILIA (GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA) 5-YEAR REVIEW: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 2008-03-XX
GIL00S0005 GILLESPIE, I. - GILLESPIE #15 UCR #120817 2000-04-22 JSA94R0001 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. - MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FORT ORD 1994-02-XX KRE03F0003 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUFLORA SSP. ARENARIA, CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS & ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA 2003-05-13
KRE03F0005 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 2003-05-19 KRE03F0007 KREIBERG, P. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 2003-05-13 LFR10R0001 LFR, WESTON, & WESTCLIFFE - 2009 ANNUAL NATURAL RESOURCE MONITORING, MITIGATION, AND MANAGEMENT REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PREPARED FOR FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY. 109PP. 2010-02-05 MOR06S0004 MORGAN, R. - MORGAN #5024 UCSC #2174 2006-05-20 MOR96U0003 MOREY, S. - COASTAL PLANTS RECOVERY WORKSHOP SUMMARY 1996-12-17 SHA08R0001 SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. - 2007 ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT, FORMER FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

PREPARED FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 2008-02-XX
STA17F0013 STAPELMANN, C. & S. ETCHELL - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 2017-06-02 STU16F0017 STUART, K. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 2016-05-12 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX WES94F0004 WESCO - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GILIA TENUIFLORA SSP. ARENARIA 1994-05-18 Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

HOL98F0008 HOLMES, E. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR HORKELIA CUNEATA SSP. SERICEA 1998-11-14 HOL98S0001 HOLMES, E. - HOLMES SN JEPS #95205 1998-06-24 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 28845 EO Index: 30751
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDROS0W043
Occurrence Number: 18 Occurrence Last Updated: 2006-04-27 Scientific Name: Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Common Name: Kellogg's horkelia Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4T1?
State: S1?
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL
DUNES, CHAPARRAL.

OLD DUNES, COASTAL SANDHILLS; OPENINGS. SANDY OR GRAVELLY SOILS. 5-430 M.

Last Date Observed: 1998-11-14 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1998-11-14 Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: UC-SANTA CRUZ, MNT COUNTY Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, 2 MILES EAST OF MARINA ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF RESERVATION ROAD.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

SWALES BETWEEN MARITIME CHAPARRAL, QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA, AND/OR COASTAL SCRUB COMMUNITIES. DOMINANT: NASSELLA.

ASSOCIATES: POLYGONUM PARONYCHIA, CROTON CALIFORNICA, LESSINGIA GLANDULIFERA VAR. PECTINATA, & ACAENA PINNATIFIDA VAR.

CALIFORNICA.

Threats:

UTILITY AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ROAD MAINTENANCE. ORV USE. WELL DRILLING TO TEST FOR CONTAMINATION.

General:

PLANT DENSITY ESTIMATED TO BE LOW (1-100S PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM (100S TO 1000S PER ACRE) IN 1992. SEVERAL THOUSAND PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1998. INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE #24.

PLSS: T14S, R02E, Sec. 33, S (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 279 160Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.66270 / -121.75304UTM: Zone-10 N4058180 E611439 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 28838 EO Index: 30365
Key Quad: Spreckels (3612156) Element Code: PDROS0W043
Occurrence Number: 22 Occurrence Last Updated: 1997-03-03 Scientific Name: Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Common Name: Kellogg's horkelia Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4T1?
State: S1?
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL
DUNES, CHAPARRAL.

OLD DUNES, COASTAL SANDHILLS; OPENINGS. SANDY OR GRAVELLY SOILS. 5-430 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, WEST OF PILARCITOS CANYON AND SOUTHWEST OF PILARCITOS RIDGE.

Detailed Location:

WEST OF ENGINEER CANYON ROAD AND NORTH OF JACKS ROAD.

Ecological:

COASTAL SCRUB, MARITIME CHAPARRAL, AND CLOSED CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST.

Threats:

General:

PLANT DENSITY ESTIMATED TO BE LOW (1-100S PER ACRE) IN 1992.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 13 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 215 300Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62162 / -121.70695UTM: Zone-10 N4053677 E615621 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 28837 EO Index: 30364
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDROS0W043
Occurrence Number: 23 Occurrence Last Updated: 1997-03-03 Scientific Name: Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Common Name: Kellogg's horkelia Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4T1?
State: S1?
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL
DUNES, CHAPARRAL.

OLD DUNES, COASTAL SANDHILLS; OPENINGS. SANDY OR GRAVELLY SOILS. 5-430 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD, VICINITY OF SANDSTONE RIDGE. ALSO ALONG PERRY RIDGE.

Detailed Location:

PART OF POPULATION FOUND EAST OF BARLOY CANYON ROAD.

Ecological:

COASTAL SCRUB, MARITIME CHAPARRAL, AND CLOSED CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST.

Threats:

General:

PLANT DENSITY ESTIMATED TO BE LOW (1-100S PER ACRE) IN 1992.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 16 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 823 400Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62701 / -121.74467UTM: Zone-10 N4054230 E612240 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

GRE99U0002 GREENLAKE, J. - PROPOSED "NEW ADDITIONS" COMMENT FOR CASTILLEJA AMBIGUA SSP. INSALUTATA. 1999-06-30 TAY10U0002 TAYLOR, D. - CNPS RARE PLANT STATUS REVIEW POSTING FOR CASTILLEJA AMBIGUA SSP. INSALUTATA 2010-01-25 YAD82S0008 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #2181 1982-06-10
Map Index Number: 78467 EO Index: 79392
Key Quad: Marina (3612167) Element Code: PDSCR0D403
Occurrence Number: 13 Occurrence Last Updated: 2010-04-01 Scientific Name: Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata Common Name: pink Johnny-nip Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G4T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL BLUFF SCRUB, COASTAL PRAIRIE. WET OR MOIST COASTAL STRAND OR SCRUB HABITATS. 3-135 M.

Last Date Observed: 1999-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1999-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

FORT ORD HENNEKEN FLATS.

Detailed Location:
"MIMI MOUND AREA". EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED BY CNDDB AS BEST GUESS IN VICINITY OF HENNEKEN RANGER STATION IN FORT ORD.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS A 1982 YADON COLLECTION. GREENLAKE FOUND A SMALL POPULATION AT FT. ORD IN 1997 AND 1999.

TAYLOR THINKS THIS MAY BE THE ONLY EXTANT LOCATION. NEEDS FIELDWORK.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 04 (M) Accuracy: 4/5 mile Area (acres): 0 300Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.64529 / -121.75883UTM: Zone-10 N4056242 E610947 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

HEC68S0001 HECKARD, L. ET AL. - HECKARD #2066 JEPS #57465, RSA #523327, SBBG #100097, OBI #59452 1968-07-18 HOW67S0004 HOWELL, J. - HOWELL #42050 CAS #476858 1967-03-15 HOW67S0028 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #2072 PGM #6908, CAS #471145 1967-06-02 HOW67S0029 HOWITT, B. - HOWITT #3014-A PGM #6909-A, #6909-B, CAS #477101 1967-07-18 STO90F0002 STONE, D. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR CORDYLANTHUS RIGIDUS SSP. LITTORALIS 1990-08-20 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 10606 EO Index: 11958
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PDSCR0J0P2
Occurrence Number: 6 Occurrence Last Updated: 2015-09-23 Scientific Name: Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis Common Name: seaside bird's-beak Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: Endangered
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL DUNES.

SANDY, OFTEN DISTURBED SITES, USUALLY WITHIN CHAPARRAL OR COASTAL SCRUB. 30-520 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Good
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EASTERN PART OF FT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION; CRESCENT BLUFF ROAD N OF SANDSTONE RIDGE AND N OF PILARCITOS RIDGE.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO 1992 MAP DETAIL PROVIDED BY USACE. COLLECTIONS FROM "EASTERN PART OF FORT ORD," "NE CORNER OF FORT ORD," AND "6 MI E WEST ENTRANCE (E SIDE OF FORT, CRESCENT BLUFFS RD OVERLOOKING MERRILL RANCH), FORT ORD" ATTRIB HERE.

Ecological:

IN SANDY S-FACING ROADCUT & IN ADJOINING CHAPARRAL/COASTAL SCRUB. WITH SALVIA MELLIFERA, ERICAMERIA ERICOIDES, QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA, CROTON CALIFORNICUS, ADENOSTOMA FASCICULATUM, BACCHARIS PILULARIS, & ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA.

Threats:

ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES COULD THREATEN.

General:
650 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1990. UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS IN 1992. THREE 1967 HOWITT COLLECTIONS AND A 1968 HECKARD COLLECTION ARE ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE. INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE #11.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 11 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 437 300Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63184 / -121.72247UTM: Zone-10 N4054793 E614217 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 39435 EO Index: 34437
Key Quad: Spreckels (3612156) Element Code: PDSCR0J0P2
Occurrence Number: 34 Occurrence Last Updated: 1998-08-13 Scientific Name: Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis Common Name: seaside bird's-beak Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: Endangered
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G5T2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, CISMONTANE
WOODLAND, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL DUNES.

SANDY, OFTEN DISTURBED SITES, USUALLY WITHIN CHAPARRAL OR COASTAL SCRUB. 30-520 M.

Last Date Observed: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1992-XX-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

EAST OF SEASIDE, WEST OF BARLOY CANYON ROAD ABOUT 0.75 MILE WSW OF MUDHEN LAKE, FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED ABOUT 0.15 MILE WEST OF BARLOY CANYON ROAD AND JUST NORTH OF ROAD TO HUFFMAN RANGER STATION.

Ecological:

MAPPED WITHIN MARITIME CHAPARRAL.

Threats:

General:

PLANT DENSITY REPORTED AS LOW IN "FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA" BY JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES FOR U.S. ARMY C.O.E.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 16 (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 250Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.62470 / -121.74497UTM: Zone-10 N4053973 E612216 Monterey Spreckels (3612156), Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

KEE13U0001 KEELAN, B. - EXPORT OF DATA FROM BRIAN KEELAN'S PLANT DATABASE 2013-07-26 SOL09S0038 SOLOMESHCH, A. ET AL. - SOLOMESHCH SN DAV #85164 & #85165 2009-04-08 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX YAD84S0003 YADON, V. - YADON SN PGM #2581 1984-04-27
YAD85F0002 YADON, V. - FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR ALLIUM HICKMANII 1985-02-XX YAD87U0001 YADON, V. - RECORD OF PHONE CONVERSATION WITH R. BITTMAN 1987-05-12 Map Index Number: 10582 EO Index: 21834
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PMLIL02140
Occurrence Number: 18 Occurrence Last Updated: 2016-09-29 Scientific Name: Allium hickmanii Common Name: Hickman's onion Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL PRAIRIE, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND.

SANDY LOAM, DAMP GROUND AND VERNAL SWALES; MOSTLY IN

GRASSLAND THOUGH CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH CHAPARRAL OR
WOODLAND. 5-200 M.

Last Date Observed: 2009-04-08 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2009-04-08 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

VICINITY OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, SOUTHWEST OF EAST GARRISON AT FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED AS 3 POLYGONS ACCORDING TO A 1992 USACE MAP AND KEELAN COORDINATES.

Ecological:

PLANTS IN LARGE VERNAL SWALE ASSOCIATED WITH CALOCHORTUS UNIFLORUS, BRODIAEA TERRESTRIS, ISOETES HOWELLII, PLAGIOBOTHRYS CHORISIANUS HICKMANII, LASTHENIA CONJUGENS, AND POGOGYNE SERPYLLOIDES.

Threats:

ABOUT 50% OF AREA GRADED FOR PARACHUTE DROP SITE.

General:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS MAP DETAIL PROVIDED BY USACE. UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2007- 2009. 1984 YADON COLLECTION FROM "HENNIKEN FLATS - FORMERLY CALLED MACHINE GUN MEADOWS" ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 9 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 164 450Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63699 / -121.74619UTM: Zone-10 N4055335 E612089 Monterey Salinas (3612166), Marina (3612167)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

LIN80S0001 LIND, H. - LIND SN PGM #2079 1980-04-27
MAT89U0001 MATHEWS, M. - LETTER TO LEON PANETTA ATTACHED TO NC37C20 OCC 3. 1989-XX-XX STO00S0005 STONE, J. & S. BODINE - STONE #3009 SEINET #10948808, MO #1440432 2000-04-15 USA92R0001 USACE - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DIST. - FLORA AND FAUNA BASELINE STUDY OF FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA. 290PP. PREPARED BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES. 1992-12-XX Map Index Number: 39460 EO Index: 34462
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PMLIL02140
Occurrence Number: 24 Occurrence Last Updated: 2017-10-26 Scientific Name: Allium hickmanii Common Name: Hickman's onion Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

CLOSED-CONE CONIFEROUS FOREST, CHAPARRAL, COASTAL SCRUB, COASTAL PRAIRIE, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND.

SANDY LOAM, DAMP GROUND AND VERNAL SWALES; MOSTLY IN

GRASSLAND THOUGH CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH CHAPARRAL OR
WOODLAND. 5-200 M.

Last Date Observed: 2000-04-15 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2000-04-15 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

SOUTHEAST OF EAST GARRISON ABOUT 0.7 MILE WEST OF RESERVATION ROAD AT DAVIS ROAD, FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY RESERVATION.

Detailed Location:

ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF CRESCENT BLUFF ROAD.

Ecological:

OAK SCRUB AND OPEN SLOPES.

Threats:

FORMERLY THREATENED BY BUNKER BUILDING PROJECT; PRESUMABLY THIS IS NO LONGER A THREAT.

General:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFO FOR THIS SITE IS MAP DETAIL PROVIDED BY USACE. 1980 LIND COLLECTION FROM "FT ORD RESERVE #6 - CRESCENT BLUFF RD" AND 2000 STONE COLLECTION FROM "OFF CRESCENT BLUFF RD..." ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 11 (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 235 200Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63891 / -121.71899UTM: Zone-10 N4055581 E614518 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

TAY05U0004 TAYLOR, D. - EMAIL FROM DEAN TAYLOR RE: NEW OCCURRENCE REPORTED IN RANCHO SAN JUAN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR. 2005- 01-07
Map Index Number: 68765 EO Index: 69250
Key Quad: Prunedale (3612176) Element Code: PMLIL0V0C0
Occurrence Number: 64 Occurrence Last Updated: 2007-03-30 Scientific Name: Fritillaria liliacea Common Name: fragrant fritillary Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2
State: S2
Other Lists: SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

COASTAL SCRUB, VALLEY AND FOOTHILL GRASSLAND, COASTAL
PRAIRIE, CISMONTANE WOODLAND.

OFTEN ON SERPENTINE; VARIOUS SOILS REPORTED THOUGH
USUALLY ON CLAY, IN GRASSLAND. 3-385 M.

Last Date Observed: 2002-06-XX Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2002-06-XX Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

RANCHO SAN JUAN AREA, ABOUT 2 AIR MILES SE OF PRUNEDALE.

Detailed Location:
"...DISTRIBUTED OVER APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES...IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE [RANCH SAN JUAN] SPECIFIC PLAN AREA." EXACT LOCATION OF RANCHO SAN JUAN UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB ACCORDING TO THE "VICINITY MAP" OF THE PLAN.

Ecological:

MIXED NATIVE/NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND.

Threats:

General:

FEWER THAN 20 PLANTS WERE OBSERVED IN 1998, AND AGAIN IN APRIL AND JUNE OF 2002. NEEDS FIELDWORK TO DETERMINE EXACT LOCATION.

PLSS: T13S, R03E, Sec. 34 (M) Accuracy: 1 mile Area (acres): 0 Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.75832 / -121.63391UTM: Zone-10 N4068933 E621935 Monterey Natividad (3612165), Salinas (3612166), San Juan Bautista (3612175), Prunedale (3612176) Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

MOR10S0001 MORGAN, R. ET AL. - MORGAN SN US #3621794 (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2010-05-22 PET11A0001 PETERSON ET AL. - AGROSTIS LACUNA-VERNALIS (POOIDEAE: POEAE: AGROSTIDINAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM CALIFORNIA.

JOURNAL OF THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS 5(2): 421-426 (2011) 2011-XX-XX STY11S0001 STYER, D. ET AL. - STYER #1 JEPS (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2011-05-24 STY11S0002 STYER, D. ET AL. - STYER #2 CAS (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2011-05-24 STY11S0003 STYER, D. ET AL. - STYER #3 US (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2011-05-24 STY11S0004 STYER, D. ET AL. - STYER #4 RSA (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2011-05-24 STY12U0001 STYER, D. - LIST OF COORDINATES IN AN EMAIL FROM STYER FOR AGROSTIS LACUNA-VERNALIS 2012-05-20 Map Index Number: 86359 EO Index: 87397
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PMPOA041N0
Occurrence Number: 1 Occurrence Last Updated: 2012-08-08 Scientific Name: Agrostis lacuna-vernalis Common Name: vernal pool bent grass Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VERNAL POOLS. IN MIMA MOUND AREAS OR ON THE MARGINS OF VERNAL POOLS. 125-150 M.

Last Date Observed: 2011-05-24 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2011-05-24 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

BUTTERFLY VALLEY; 1.0 MILE SOUTH OF THE RANGER STATION, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB ACCORDING TO COORDINATES IN A 2012 STYER EMAIL IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9 AND THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 10.

Ecological:

MIMA MOUND AREA.

Threats:

General:

SITE VISITED IN 2010 AND 2011; POPULATION SIZE UNKNOWN.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 6 465Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63229 / -121.74387UTM: Zone-10 N4054817 E612303 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

PET11A0001 PETERSON ET AL. - AGROSTIS LACUNA-VERNALIS (POOIDEAE: POEAE: AGROSTIDINAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM CALIFORNIA.

JOURNAL OF THE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS 5(2): 421-426 (2011) 2011-XX-XX STY11S0005 STYER, D. - STYER SN JEPS, US (CITED IN PET11A0001) 2011-05-27 STY12U0001 STYER, D. - LIST OF COORDINATES IN AN EMAIL FROM STYER FOR AGROSTIS LACUNA-VERNALIS 2012-05-20 Map Index Number: 86360 EO Index: 87398
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PMPOA041N0
Occurrence Number: 2 Occurrence Last Updated: 2012-07-18 Scientific Name: Agrostis lacuna-vernalis Common Name: vernal pool bent grass Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VERNAL POOLS. IN MIMA MOUND AREAS OR ON THE MARGINS OF VERNAL POOLS. 125-150 M.

Last Date Observed: 2011-05-27 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2011-05-27 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

MACHINE GUN FLATS; 0.8 MILE SSE OF THE RANGER STATION, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB ACCORDING TO COORDINATES IN A 2012 STYER EMAIL IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

SITE VISITED IN 2011.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, SE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 1 480Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63298 / -121.75072UTM: Zone-10 N4054885 E611690 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Sources:

STY12U0001 STYER, D. - LIST OF COORDINATES IN AN EMAIL FROM STYER FOR AGROSTIS LACUNA-VERNALIS 2012-05-20 Map Index Number: 86361 EO Index: 87399
Key Quad: Salinas (3612166) Element Code: PMPOA041N0
Occurrence Number: 3 Occurrence Last Updated: 2012-07-18 Scientific Name: Agrostis lacuna-vernalis Common Name: vernal pool bent grass Listing Status: Federal: None Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1
State: None
CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G1
State: S1
Other Lists: BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
General Habitat: Micro Habitat:

VERNAL POOLS. IN MIMA MOUND AREAS OR ON THE MARGINS OF VERNAL POOLS. 125-150 M.

Last Date Observed: 2011-05-19 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 2011-05-19 Occurrence Rank: Unknown
Owner/Manager: BLM-FORT ORD Trend: Unknown
Presence: Presumed Extant
Location:

NEAR TRAIL 17 AND TRAIL 57, JUST NORTH OF MACHINE GUN FLATS, ABOUT 0.5 MILE SE OF THE RANGER STATION, FORT ORD.

Detailed Location:

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS 2 POLYGONS ACCORDING TO COORDINATES IN A 2012 STYER EMAIL IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 9 AND THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 10.

Ecological:

Threats:

General:

SITE VISITED IN 2011.

PLSS: T15S, R02E, Sec. 09, NE (M) Accuracy: specific area Area (acres): 2 420Elevation (feet):Latitude/Longitude: 36.63979 / -121.74755UTM: Zone-10 N4055645 E611963 Monterey Salinas (3612166)
Quad Summary:County Summary:

Report Printed on Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Information Expires 9/3/2023
Occurrence Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Foods Co | 167

7.3 Appendix C: CHRIS Search Record
Prepared by NWIC dated April 14, 2022.

Print Name: Shin Tu Date:

I, the the undersigned, have been granted access to historical resources information on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Califronia Historical Resources Information System.

I understand that any CHRIS Confidential Information I receive shall not be disclosed to individuals who do not qualify for access to such information, as specified in Section III(A-E) of the CHRIS Information Center Rules of Operation Manual, or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the Information Center Coordinator.

I agree to submit historical Resource Records and Reports based in part on the CHRIS information released under this Access Agreement to the Information Center within sixy (60) calendar days of completion.

I agree to pay for CHRIS services provided under this Access Agreement within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of billing.

I understand that failure to comply with this Access Agreement shall be grounds for denial of access to CHRIS Information.

Signature:

Affiliation: Precision Civil Engineering
Address:

Billing Address (if different from above):

City/State/ZIP:

Special Billing Information
Telephone: (559) 449-4500 Email: [email protected]
Purpose of Access:

Reference (project name or number, title of study, and street address if applicable):

Foods Co Rezone
County: MNT USGS 7.5' Quad:

Sonoma State University Customer ID: credit card
Sonoma State University Invoice No.:
**This is not an invoice. Sonoma State University will send separate Invoice** File Number: 21-1462

ACCESS AGREEMENT SHORT FORM
Project Planning
Salinas

CALIFOR NIA

HISTORICAL

R ESOURCES

INFORM ATION
SYSTEM

ALAMEDA
COLUSA
CONT RA COSfA

DEL NORTE

HUMBOLDT
LAKE
MARIN

MENDOCINO

MONTEREY
NAPA

SAN BENITO

SAN FRANCISCO

SAN MATEO

SANTA CLATA

SANTAC RUZ
SOLANO
SONOMA
YOLO
Northwest Information Center
Sonoma State University
1400 Valley House D:rive, Suite 210
Rohnert Park, California 94928-3609
Tel: 707.588.8455
nwi [email protected]
https ://nwic .sonoma.,edu
April 14, 2022 NWIC File No.: 21-1462
Shin Tu, Assistant Planner
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 "O" Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Re: Record search results for the proposed Foods Co Rezone, Salinas, Monterey County, California

Dear Shin Tu:

Per your request received by our office on March 1, 2022, a records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Monterey County. An Area of Potential Effects (APE) map was not provided; in lieu of this, the location map provided depicting the proposed Foods Co Rezone project area was used to conduct this records search. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.

The proposed project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Office and Retail to Mixed Use, and a rezone to change zoning from Commercial Retail to MU-Mixed Use. This would facilitate residential development to expand housing opportunities. The Project does not propose physical development. However, the city envisioned the development of a new mixed-use neighborhood. For the purpose of CEQA analysis, the Project assumes the development of 211,958-sf. commercial space and 795 residential dwelling units.

Review of the information at our office indicates that there have been no previous cultural resource studies that cover the proposed Foods Co Rezone project area. The project area contains no previously recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no previously recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed project area. In addition to the inventories mentioned above, NWIC base maps show no previously recorded buildings or structures within the proposed project area.

At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Mutsun and/or Rumsen languages, both of which are part of the Costanoan subfamily of the Utian language family (Shipley 1978: 89). There are no Native American

ALAMEDA
COLUSA
CONTR ,\ CO~TJ\
IJEL :\ORTE

CALIFORNIA

HISTORICAL

RESOURCES

INFORMATION
SYST EM ~~~ --------------- .. -
'

HUMDO LDT
LAKE
MJ\RTN

MENIJOCJNO
MON'JU {EY
:\J\PJ\

SAN BENITO
SA:\ FRANCISCO
SA:\ MATEO
SJ\:\TJ\ CLJ\TJ\
SA:\TA CRUZ
SOLANO
SO:\OMA
YOLO
Northwest Information Center
Sonoma State Unive rsity
1400 Valley Hou se Dri ve, Sui te 210
Rohn ert Park, California 94928-3609
Tel: 707.588.8455
nwic@sono ma.ed u
https:/ /nwic. sonoma. edu
2 21-1462
resources within or adjacent to the Foods Co Rezone project area that are referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976).

Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Monterey County have been found near seasonal and perennial waterways and the associated ecotones found nearby. Sites are also found at foothill to valley interfaces and near oak woodland environments. The Foods Co Rezone project area is located on a higher landform in between a former drainage to Alisal Creek and the wetlands associated with Natividad Creek. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed project area.

Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication of historic-period activity within the Foods Co Rezone project area. While the 1912 Salinas 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts an unimproved road within a portion of the proposed project area, not other buildings or structures were noted nor any other information regarding possible activity in the proposed project area. With this information in mind, there is a low potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed project area.

The 1947 (photorevised 1975) USGS Salinas 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts numerous buildings or structures within the Foods Co Rezone project area. These unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects that are 45 years of age or older may be of historical value.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) As per the project description, there is to be no ground disturbance at this time. When proposed, we recommend further study for the possibility of identifying Native American archaeological resources as there is a moderate potential for Native American archaeological resources and a low potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be within the project area. In the future, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify cultural resources. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that the unrecorded building or structure be documented on Office of Historic Preservation’s DPR 523 resource recordation forms by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of Monterey County.

Furthermore, the potential impacts of the proposed project activities on this building or structure should be assessed, and project-specific recommendations provided, as warranted. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive. 3 21-1462

5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

Thank you for using our services. If you have any questions, please contact our office at [email protected] or at (707) 588-8455.

Sincerely,

Bryan Much
Coordinator

I
4 21-1462

LITERATURE REVIEWED

In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, California Archaeological Inventory, the following literature was reviewed:

Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll
2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California. Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz, CA (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, IL: 1893.)

Breschini, Gary S., Trudy Haversat, and Mona Gudgel
2000 10,000 Years on the Salinas Plain, An Illustrated History of Salinas City, California.

Heritage Media Corp., Carlsbad, CA.

Clark, Donald Thomas
1991 Monterey County Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary. Kestrel Press, Carmel Valley, CA.

Gudde, Erwin G.
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.

Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hart, James D.
1987 A Companion to California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.

Howard, Donald M., Esq.
1979 Prehistoric Sites Handbook: Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties. Angel Press, Monterey, CA.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)

Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
5 21-1462

Monterey County Historical Society, Inc.
n.d. List of Surveyed Sites for Salinas Historic Survey. Monterey County Historical Society, Inc., Salinas, CA.

Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.

Ryan, Nicki
1981 Historic Resources in Monterey County.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2021 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 15, 2021).

State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, NY.)

Works Progress Administration
1989 The WPA Guide to the Monterey Peninsula. Reprint by the University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. (Originally published in 1941 as Monterey Peninsula.)

**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Foods Co | 168

7.4 Appendix D: NAHC SLF Results Letter
Prepared by NAHC dated April 8, 2022.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

April 8, 2022

Shin Tu
Precision Civil Engineering

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Foods Co Rezone Project, Monterey County

Dear Shin Tu:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the tribes on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Foods Co | 169

7.5 Appendix E: Noise Assessment
Prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc., on February 25, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT

MIXED‐USE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE PROJECT
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

WJVA Project No. 22-64

PREPARED FOR

PRECISION ENGINEERING
1234 O Street
Fresno, California 93721

PREPARED BY

WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 25, 2023

113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923

■ 5. ■ ••
•••••• =====· •••••• •• • •
wjv acoustics

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  2

INTRODUCTION

The  Mixed‐Use  General  Plan  Amendment  and  Rezone  Project  (“Project”)  pertains  to  five  (5) separate sites within the City of Salinas, Monterey County, California and proposes to change the designated land use and zoning of the sites from their current  base designations and districts to “Mixed Use” and MX – Mixed Use, respectively. This acoustical a nalysis analyzes the potential impacts that could result from the proposed designated land use s and zoning changes for the sites and provides the results of an ambient noise survey in the project areas.

The proposed designated land use  and zoning changes pertain to  five individual sites. In most cases each site is comprised of multiple parcels. Figure 1 through Figure 5 provide graphics of the five project site areas. A brief description of each of the five sites are provided below:

 Alisal  Marketplace: T h e  p r o p o s e d  p r o j e c t  i s  g e n e r a l l y  l o c a t e d  a d j a c e n t  t o  E a s t  A l isal Street, between Front Street and Griffin Street. The Project site consists of 18 parcels that total approximately 12.1 acres. The project site is currently zoned CR (Commercial Retail) and IGC (Industrial General Commercial).

 Edge of Downtown:  The proposed project is generally located north and south to J ohn Street  between  Front  Street  and  Abbott  Street.  The  Project  site  consists  of  eight  (8) parcels  that  total  approximately  3.7  acres.  The  project  site  is c u r r e n t l y  z o n e d  C R (Commercial Retail).

 Foods Co Shopping Center: The proposed project is generally located south of East Alisal Street between South Sanborn Road and John Street. The Project site consists of eight (8) p a r c e l s  t h a t  t o t a l  a p p r o x i m a t e l y  1 3 . 5  a c r e s .  T h e  p r o j e c t  s i t e  i s  c u r r e n t l y  z o n e d  C R (Commercial Retail).

 Laurel West Shopping Center:  The proposed project is generally located east of North David Road between West Laurel Drive/Calle Del Adobe and Larkin  Street at 1040 North Davis  Road,  Salinas,  CA  93907.  The  Project  site  consists  of  six ( 6 )  p a r c e l s  t h a t  t o t a l approximately 16.2 acres. The project site is currently zoned CR (Commercial Retail).

 Sears/Northridge  Mall: T h e  p r o p o s e d  p r o j e c t  i s  g e n e r a l l y  l o c a t e d  o n  t h e  n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r  o f  N o r t h  M a i n  S t r e e t  a n d  M a d r i d  S t r e e t  a t  1 7 0 0  N  M a i n  S t,  Salinas,  CA  93906 (“Large  Shopping  Centers/Sears.  The  Project  site  consists  of  one  (1)  parcel  that  totals approximately 10.2 acres. The project site is currently zoned CR (Commercial Retail).

This environmental noise assessment has been prepared to determine if significant noise impacts will  be  produced  by  the  project  and  to  describe  mitigation  measu r e s  f o r  n o i s e  i f  s i g n i f i c a n t impacts are determined. The environmental noise assessment, pre pared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA),  is  based  upon  the  project  information  (including  project  traffic  volumes) provided  by Precision Engineering, Inc. Revisions to the project traffic information or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  3

Specifically, this environmental noise assessment addresses the potential changes in traffic noise exposure  to  existing  sensitive  receptor  locations,  that  would  likely  occur  as  a  result  of  the proposed project. The analysis also discusses noise sources and noise levels typical of single‐ and multi‐family  residential  and  mixe d‐use  residential  developments a s  w e l l  a s  a  d i s c u s s i o n  o f potential noise impacts to proposed residential land uses within the mixed‐use zoning areas.

Appendix  A  provides  definitions  of  the  acoustical  terminology  u sed  in  this  report.  Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB).  A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and v ery high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standar ds utilize A‐weighted sound levels,  as  they  correlate  well  with  public  reaction  to  noise.  Appendix  B  provides  examples  of sound levels for reference.

I n  t e r m s  o f  h u m a n  p e r c e p t i o n ,  a  5  d B  i n c r e a s e  o r  d e c r e a s e  i s  c on s i d e r e d  t o  b e  a  n o t i c e a b l e change in noise levels.  Additionally, a 10 dB increase or decrease is perceived by the human ear as half as loud or twice as loud. In terms of perception, generally speaking the human ear cannot perceive an increase (or decrease) in noise levels less than 3 dB.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  4

NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA

The  CEQA  Guidelines  apply  the  following  questions  for  the  assessment  of  significant  noise impacts for a project:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial tempora ry 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 ap plicable standards of other agencies?

b. Would  the  project  result  in  generation  of  excessive  groundborne v i b r a t i o n  o r groundborne noise levels?

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip  or an airport land use p l a n  o r ,  w h e r e  s u c h  a  p l a n  h a s  n o t  b e e n  a d o p t e d ,  w i t h i n  t w o  m i les of  a  public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

City of Salinas

General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Salinas General Plan (adopted September 2002) establishes land use compatibility criteria in terms of the Day‐Night Average Le vel (L dn/DNL) for transportation
noise sources. The Ldn is the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour  day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nightt ime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The L dn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended perio d of time and is therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.

The General Plan Noise Element states  “To ensure that noise producers do not adversely affect sensitive  receptors,  the  City  uses  land  use  compatibility  standards  when  planning  and  making development decisions. Table N‐2 summarizes the City noise standards for various types of land uses. The standards represent the maximum acceptable noise level as measured at the property boundary,  which  is  used  to  determine  noise  impacts.”  Table  N‐2  of  the  General  Plan  Noise Element is presented below as Table I

Table 1
Exterior Noise Standards

Designation/District of Property
Receiving Noise
Maximum Noise Level,
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Agricultural 70
Residential 60
Commercial 65
Industrial 70
Public and Semipublic 60

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  5 While not explicitly stated in the General Plan, exterior noise  standards are typically applied at outdoor activity areas of reside ntial (and otherwise sensitive) land uses. Outdoor activity areas generally  include  backyards  of  single‐family  residences  and  ind ividual  patios  or  decks  and common outdoor activity areas of multi‐family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level  requirement  is  to  provide  an  acceptable  noise  environment f o r  o u t d o o r  a c t i v i t i e s  a n d recreation.

T h e  G e n e r a l  P l a n  N o i s e  E l e m e n t  f u r t h e r  s t a t e s  “These  noise  standar ds  are  the  basis  for development of the land use compatibility guidelines presented  in Table N‐3. If the noise level of a  project  falls  within  Zone  A  or  Zone  B,  the  project  is  considered  compatible  with  the  noise environment.  Zone  A  implies  that  no  mitigation  will  be  needed.  Z o n e  B  i m p l i e s  t h a t  m i n o r mitigation  may  be  required  to  meet  the  City's  and  Title  24  noise  standards.  All  development project  proponents  are  required  to  demonstrate  that  the  noise  standards  will  be  met  prior  to human occupation of a building.

If  the  noise  level  falls  within  Zone  C,  substantial  mitigation  is  likely  needed  to  meet  City  noise standards.  Substantial  mitigation  may  involve  construction  of  noise  barriers  and  substantial building  sound  insulation.  Projects  in  Zone  C  can  be  successfully  mitigated;  however,  project proponents with a project in Zone C must demonstrate that the noise standards can be met prior to issuance of a building permit.

If noise levels fall outside of Zones A, B and C, projects are  considered clearly incompatible with the noise environment and should not be approved.” Table N‐3 of the General Plan Noise Element is presented below as Table II.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  6 Table II

Land Use
Residential
Trans ient Lodging - Motel,
Hotel
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Hal.ls,
Am hitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
S ectator S orts
Playgrounds, Parks
Golf Course, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Community Noise Exposure
(Ldn or CNEL)
65 70
Source: Modified by CBA from 1998 State of California Genera l Plan Guidelines. 80 -
ZONE A . Normall y 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. -
ZONE B • 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. . --
Zone C- Normally Unacceptabl e: 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.

ZONE D- Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. 85 22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  7 The City of Salinas General Plan also provides an interior nois e standard of 45 dB CNEL/L dn. The interior standard is to ensure interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dB CNEL (or Ldn) within residential land uses. This is consistent with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for residential construction and consistent with  U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development  (HUD).  The  intent  of  the  interior  noise  level  guideline  is  to  provide  an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

Additionally,  Section  1207.4  of  t he  California  Building  Code  st ates  “Interior  noise  levels attributable to exterior sources should not exceed 45 dB in any inhabitable room. The noise metric shall be the day‐night average sound level (L dn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise level of the local general plan.”  The section of the California Building Code applies to Hotels and Motels.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  8

EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS

WJVA  conducted  measurements  of  existing  ambient  noise  levels  in   the  project  vicinity  on February 1 and February 2, 2023. Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at ten (10) locations (sites LT‐1 through LT‐10). Two  (2) ambient noise measurement sites were located in each of the five (5) overall project areas.

The  intent  of  the  ambient  noise  survey  was  to  document  existing n o i s e  l e v e l s  i n  t h e  o v e r a l l project  area.  A  general  descripti o n  o f  e a c h  o f  t h e  t e n  a m b i e n t  noise  measurement  sites  is provided below. The locations of the ten ambient noise survey locations are provided as Figure 6 through Figure 10.

Alisal Marketplace
 LT‐1:  Ambient  noise  measurement  site  LT‐1  was  located  near  the  intersection  of  JD Alvarado Circle and Alisal Street. LT‐1 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic a l o n g  b o t h  r o a d w a y s  a s  w e l l  a s  n o i s e  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  n e a r b y  c o mmercial/industrial activities (car wash, automotive repair shops) and occasional aircraft overflights.

 LT‐2: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐2 was located on Griffin Street, between Alisal Street and Rianda Street. LT‐2 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic along l o c a l  r o a d w a y s  a s  w e l l  U . S .  R o u t e  1 0 1  ( U S  1 0 1 ) .  S i t e  L T ‐ 2  w a s  also  exposed  to  noise associated with nearby commercial/retail activities and occasional aircraft overflights.

Edge of Downtown
 LT‐3: Ambient noise measurement  site LT‐3 was located along Sum mer Street, between Front Street and Abbot Street. LT ‐3 was exposed to noise associ ated with vehicle traffic a l o n g  n e a r b y  r o a d w a y s  a s  w e l l  a s  n o i s e  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  n e a r b y  commercial/industrial activities (lumber yard) and occasional aircraft overflights and railroad operations on the Union Pacific line.

 LT‐4: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐4 was located on Front  Street, between John Street and Winham Street. LT‐4 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic along local roadways, noise associated with nearby commercial and retail land uses along John Street as well as occasional aircraft overflights.

Foods Co Shopping Center
 LT‐5: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐5 was located along McG owan Drive, east of Sanborn  Road.  LT‐5  was  exposed  to n o i s e  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  v e h i c l e  traffic  along  nearby roadways  as  well  as  noise  associated  with  nearby  commercial/ret ail  activities  and occasional aircraft overflights.

 LT‐6:  Ambient  noise  measurement  site  LT‐6  was  located  along  Alisal  Street,  east  of Sanborn  Road.  LT‐6  was  exposed  to n o i s e  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  v e h i c l e  traffic  along  local roadways,  noise  associated  with  nearby  commercial/retail  land  u ses  as  well  and occasional aircraft overflights.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  9 Laurel West Shopping Center
 LT‐7:  Ambient  noise  measurement  site  LT‐7  was  located  along  Davis,  south  of  Laurel Drive. LT‐7 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffi c along Davis Road as well a s  n o i s e  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  n e a r b y  c o m m e r c i a l / r e t a i l  a c t i v i t i e s  a nd  occasional  aircraft overflights.

 LT‐8: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐8 was located within th e northeast portion of the project site, in an existing retail center parking lot, south of Laurel Road and west of US 101. LT‐8 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traff ic along Laurel Road and US 101, noise associated with nearby commercial/retail land use s as well and occasional aircraft overflights.

Sears/Northridge Mall Shopping Center
 LT‐9: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐9 was located northwest of the intersection of Main Street and Madrid Street, and was exposed to noise associa ted with vehicle traffic along both roadways, as well occasional aircraft overflights.

 LT‐10: Ambient noise measurement site LT‐10 was located along the access road located along the western portion of the project site. LT‐10 was exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic accessing the roadway as well as noise associat ed with nearby residential land uses (landscaping activities, barking dogs, voices, etc.)  as well as occasional aircraft overflights.

Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 24 continuou s hours at each ambient noise measurement  location.  Noise  monitoring  equipment  consisted  of  Larson‐Davis  Laboratories Model  LDL‐820  sound  level  analyzers  equipped  with  B&K  Type  4176  1/2”  microphones.  The equipment complies with the specifications of the American Nati onal Standards Institute (ANSI) for  Type  I  (Precision)  sound  level  meters.  The  meters  were  calibrated  with  a  B&K  Type  4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 55.4 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 68.7 dB between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐1  ranged  from  72.1  to  86.2  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

50.0 to 61.1 dB. The L 90 is a statistical descriptor tha t defines the noise level excee ded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absen ce of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sourc es. The measured Ldn value at  site  LT‐1  during  the  24‐hour  noise  measurement  period  was  69.1  dB.  Figure  11 graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in  ambient  noise  levels  a t  the  LT‐1  long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐2 ranged from a low of 60.0 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 68.3 dB between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐2  ranged  from  69.4  to  83.1  dB.  Residual

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  10 noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

56.8  to  63.7  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐2  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  70.9  dB.  Figure  12  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐2 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐3 ranged from a low of 50.3 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 70.9 dB between  10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐3 ranged from 63.7 to 84.0 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

46.2  to  57.5  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐3  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  66.8  dB.  Figure  13  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐3 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐4 ranged from a low of 48.6 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 63.7 dB between  noon and 1:00 p.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐4  ranged  from  66.6  to  79.4  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

44.9  to  54.8  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐4  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  62.2  dB.  Figure  14  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐4 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐5 ranged from a low of 53.0 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 69.7 dB between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐5  ranged  from  66.9  to  96.4  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

47.7  to  58.6  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐5  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  65.9  dB.  Figure  15  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐5 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐6 ranged from a low of 58.9 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 68.4 dB between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐6  ranged  from  77.2  to  88.8  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

51.0  to  58.6  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐6  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  70.2  dB.  Figure  16  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐6 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐7 ranged from a low of 53.8 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 66.3 dB between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐7  ranged  from  73.6  to  83.2  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

49.2  to  60.9  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐7  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  66.3  dB.  Figure  17  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐7 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  11  Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐8 ranged from a low of 50.1 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 61.1 dB between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐8  ranged  from  62.2  to  77.7  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

46.8  to  54.9  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐8  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  60.0  dB.  Figure  18  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐8 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (L eq) at site LT‐9 ranged from a low of 52.0 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 65.0 dB between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Hourly  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels  at  site  LT‐9  ranged  from  68.2  to  83.6  dB.  Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

48.8  to  58.1  dB.  The  measured  L dn  value  at  site  LT‐9  during  the  24‐hour  noise measurement  period  was  65.2  dB.  Figure  19  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐9 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

 Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐10 ranged from a low of 47.2 dB between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to a high of 65.5 dB between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Hourly maximum (L max) noise levels at site LT‐10 rang ed from 56.6 to 63.6 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from

42.2  to  58.3  dB.  The  measured  L dn v a l u e  a t  s i t e  L T ‐ 1 0  d u r i n g  t h e  2 4 ‐ h o u r  n o i s e measurement  period  was  65.2  dB.  Figure  20  graphically  depicts  hourly  variations  in ambient noise levels at the LT‐10 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

In  addition  to  the  above‐described  long‐term  (24‐hour)  ambient  noise  level  measurements, WJVA conducted ten (10) additional short‐term (15‐minute) noise  level measurements. Two (2) short‐term measurements were conducted within each of the five  (5) individual project areas.

The  noise  measurement  data  includes  energy  average  (Leq)  and  maximum  (Lmax)  noise  levels measured  at  the  ten  short‐term  noise  measurement  sites.  Observations  were  made  of  the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  12

TABLE III

SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA

MIXED-USE GPA & REZONE PROJECT, SALINAS
FEBRUARY 1 & 2, 2023

Site  Time  A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA  Sources Leq  Lmax ST‐1  10:10 a.m.  58.7  73.4  TR, AC, I
ST‐2  10:40 a.m.  68.7  81.4  TR, I
ST‐3  11:45 a.m.  64.4  76.2  TR
ST‐4  12:50 p.m.  66.8  77.7  TR
ST‐5  2:10 p.m.  63.6  82.0  TR, BD
ST‐6  2:40 p.m.  53.8  69.2  TR, BD
ST‐7  10:25 a.m.  51.4  59.0  TR, C
ST‐8  11:05 a.m.  53.2  61.5  TR, C
ST‐9  12:15 p.m.  62.1  68.8  TR
ST‐10  1:20 p.m.  60.3  66.9  TR, V
TR: Traffic   AC: Aircraft   V: Voices  D: Dogs Barking  BD: Birds  I: Industrial/Commercial  Activities C: Construction Activiteis
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.

The long‐ and short‐term ambient noise measurements indicate th e dominant source of noise within the overall project site areas is associated with vehicle traffic on roadways and highways.

Fluctuations in noise levels in the project areas is almost ent irely driven by fluctuation in traffic v o l u m e s .  A d d i t i o n a l  s o u r c e s  o f  n o i s e  o b s e r v e d  a t  t h e  m a j o r i t y  of  locations  included  train operations, industrial/commercial activities and occasional aircraft overflights.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  13

PROJECT-RELATED NOISE ANALYSIS

The project would rezone several parcels of land within five (5 ) areas within the City of Salinas.

The  parcels  are  currently  zoned  a  mixture  of  Commercial  Retail (CR)  and  Industrial  General Commercial (IGC), and would be rezoned as Mixed Use (MX). The change in zoning density would result in a decrease in traffic volumes along roadways in the v icinity of the various mixed‐use zoned parcels. However, existing  (and future) traffic noise exp osure levels adjacent to several parcels would likely exceed City of Salinas exterior noise expo sure levels for residentially zoned land uses.

Traffic Noise Exposure

Project‐Related Changes in Traffic Volumes‐
A project‐specific traffic study was not available at the time this analysis was prepared. However, WJVA  was  provided  annual  average  daily  traffic  (ADT)  volumes  associated  with  the  existing zoning (CR and IGC) as well as the proposed zoning (MX). Table IV provides the ADT volumes for the five project areas for both existing and proposed land use zoning.

TABLE IV

MIXED-USE GPA & REZONE PROJECT, SALINAS

ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES

PROJECT AREA  EXISTING ADT  PROPOSED ADT  CHANGE
ALISAL MARKETPLACE  8,262  1,771  ‐6,491
EDGE OF DOWNTOWN  3,821  1,018  ‐2,803
FOODS CO SHOPPING CENTER  5,441  1,982  ‐4,547
LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER  6,529  2,378  ‐4,151
SEARS/NORTHRIDGE MALL  10,496  1,497  ‐8,999
Source: Precision Engineering

The  above‐described ADT  volumes  represent  the  trip  generation  volumes  associated  with  the land use zoning designations (both existing and proposed), parcel size and estimated number of residential dwelling units (for proposed MX zoning designation). The distribution of these traffic volumes  along  nearby  roadways  was  not  available  at  the  time  thi s  analysis  was  prepared.

However,  WJVA  calculated  theoret ical  changes  in  traffic  noise  a ssociated  with  these  ADT changes, with the assumption that these volumes would occur on  one individual roadway for e a c h  o f  t h e  f i v e  p r o j e c t  a r e a s .  T h i s  a n a l y s i s  i s  i n t e n d e d  t o  p rovide  a  generalized/qualitative snapshot of overall changes in traffic noise exposure associated with project implementation.

WJVA  utilized  the  Federal  Highway  Administration  (FHWA)  Highway  Traffic  Noise  Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). The FHWA Model is a standard analytical  method used for roadway traffic  noise  calculations.  The  model  is  based  upon  reference  e nergy  emission  levels  for automobiles,  medium  trucks  (2  axles)  and  heavy  trucks  (3  or  more  axles),  with  consideration given  to  vehicle  volume,  speed,  roadway  configuration,  distance   to  the  receiver,  and  the

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  14 acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB.  To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution o f traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Table V provides the theoretical noise exposure levels associated with project‐related traffic only, and  is  not  intended  to  provide  actual  cumulative  (project  plus  non‐project  related  traffic volumes) traffic noise exposure levels. The traffic noise exposure levels described in Table V were calculated at a reference setback distance of 100 feet from the centerline of a roadway.

TABLE V

MIXED-USE GPA & REZONE PROJECT, SALINAS

ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES

PROJECT AREA  EXISTING   PROPOSED MX  CHANGE
ALISAL MARKETPLACE  60  53  ‐7
EDGE OF DOWNTOWN  56  51  ‐5
FOODS CO SHOPPING CENTER  58  54  ‐4
LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER  59  54  ‐5
SEARS/NORTHRIDGE MALL  61  52  ‐9
Source: Precision Engineering

Traffic  noise  exposure  levels  associated  with  current  zoning  of t h e  p r o j e c t  a r e a s  v e r s u s  t h e p r o p o s e d  z o n i n g  o f  t h e  p r o j e c t  a r e a s  a r e  i n t e n d e d  o n l y  t o  d e m o nstrate  that  traffic  volumes associated  with  the  parcels  would  decrease  as  a  result  of  project  implementation.  However, based upon existing ambient noise levels (as described above),  the decrease in traffic volumes would likely not result in any significant overall reduction in traffic noise exposure levels near the f i v e  p r o j e c t  a r e a s .  T a b l e  V  s h o u l d  n o t  b e  i n t e r p r e t e d  a s  s u c h  that  the  overall  noise  exposure w i t h i n  t h e s e  a r e a s  w o u l d  d e c r e a s e  b y  t h e  d e s c r i b e d  “ c h a n g e ” ,  a s  a  r e s u l t  o f  p r o j e c t implementation.

Traffic Noise Exposure at Proposed Residential Land Uses‐ The City of Salinas exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB L dn. Existing noise
exposure at the ten ambient noise survey sites ranged from appr oximately 60‐71 dB L dn. These noise levels represent those at the measurement location only, often in close proximity to nearby roadways.  Site  specific  acoustical  analyses  will  be  required  once  specific  site  plan  design  and construction  details  are  provided.  Typically,  the  exterior  noise  standard  would  apply  at  the o u t d o o r  a c t i v i t y  a r e a s  ( b a c k y a r d s  o f  s i n g l e ‐ f a m i l y  r e s i d e n t i a l  land  uses  and  outdoor  common areas  and  individual  balconies  and  patios  of  multi‐family  residential  land  uses).  When  these locations  are  known,  a  site‐specific  determination  of  exterior  noise  exposure  and  required mitigation measures should be prepared.

Based upon the ambient noise surv ey, mitigation measures would  likely be required at several proposed residential land use sites. Exterior noise mitigation  measures would typically include

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  15 increase of setbacks, strategic placement of outdoor activity a reas as well as sound walls. The exact location and heights of sound walls cannot be determined without the preparation of site‐ specific acoustical analyses.

Additionally, the City of Salinas interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn. Depending on proximity to roadways, interior noise level standards may exceed the interior noise level standard. Interior noise  mitigation  would  typically  be  accomplished  by  means  of  increased  STC‐rated  windows, doors and wall assemblies.

Noise From Residential Sources

Noise associated with residential land uses is typically minimal compared to other land uses such as commercial, industrial, etc. Noise sources associated with residential land uses would typically include vehicle movements, noise  associated with landscaping activities, human voices, barking dogs, etc. None of these sources would be considered a potential significant noise impact at any existing or planned noise‐sensitive land uses.

Noise Impacts At Proposed Mixed-Use Developments

Mixed‐use  land  uses  would  typically  include  a  variety  of  land  u ses  including  residential, c o m m e r c i a l ,  r e t a i l  a n d  o f f i c e  u s e s .  A  w i d e  v a r i e t y  o f  n o i s e  s o urces  can  be  associated  with commercial and retail land uses.  The noise levels produced by s uch sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing on‐site and off‐ site sensitive receptors. From the p e r s p e c t i v e  o f  t h e  C i t y ’ s  n o i s e  s t a n d a r d s ,  n o i s e  s o u r c e s  n o t  a ssociated  with  transportation sources are considered stationary  noise  sources.  Typical  examples  of  s t a t i on a r y n o i s e s ou r c es include:

 Fans and blowers
 HVAC/Mechanical equipment
 Truck deliveries
 Loading Docks
 Compactors
 Amplified Drive‐Thru Menu Board Speakers
 Automated Car Wash Operations

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources cannot be predic ted with any certainty at this time since specific uses have not yet been proposed and the locations of stationary noise sources relative  to  the  locations  of  noise  sensitive  uses  are  not  known .  However,  under  some circumstances there is a potential for such uses to exceed the City’s noise standards for stationary noise sources at the locations of sensitive receptors.

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources may be effectively reduced by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise ‐producing characteristics of the

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  16 sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors. Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks, the construction of sound walls and the use of noise source equipment enclosures.

When  specific  uses  within  the  project  areas  are  proposed  that  could  result  in  a  noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source  and existing or proposed noise‐ sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis may be required that quantifies project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achiev e compliance with the City’s noise standards.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  17

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The  propped  Mixed‐Use  General  Plan  Amendment  and  Rezone  project would  decrease  traffic volumes (and potentially decrease overall noise exposure levels) in the vicinity of the five project areas.  However,  proposed  residential  land  uses  included  in  the mixed‐use  zoning  areas  could potentially be exposed to exterior and interior noise levels th at exceed the City of Salinas noise standards for residential land uses. Additionally, non‐residential land uses associated with mixed‐ zoning  land  use  designations  could  include  noise  sources  that  c ould  result  in  compatibility concerns with both existing and proposed residential land uses  in the project areas. When site‐ specific  uses  are  proposed,  site‐specific  acoustical  analyses  (noise  studies)  may  be  required  if there are potential noise impacts at existing or proposed noise‐sensitive land uses. However, the p r o j e c t  i t s e l f  w o u l d  n o t  s p e c i f i c a l l y  b e  e x p e c t e d  t o  r e s u l t  i n  any  significant  noise  impacts  to existing noise‐sensitive receptors.

The  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  this  acoustical  analysis   are  based  upon  the  best i n f o r m a t i o n  k n o w n  t o  W J V  A c o u s t i c s  I n c .  ( W J V A )  a t  t h e  t i m e  t h e  analysis  was  prepared concerning  the  proposed  project.  Any  significant  changes  to  the  p r o j e c t  m a y  r e q u i r e  a reevaluation of the findings of this report. Additionally, any significant future changes in motor vehicle technology, noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐ term noise results different from those described by this analysis.

R e s p e c t f u l l y   s u b m i t t e d ,

W a l t e r   J .   V a n   G r o n i n g e n
P r e s i d e n t

WJV:wjv

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  18 FIGURE 1: ALISAL MARKETPLACE

Source : City of Salinas, County of Monterey Open Data; Esri, Maxar, Geo Eye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ()
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
Miles

CITY OF SALINAS - ALISAL MARKETPLACE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
Created 4/11/2022

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  19 FIGURE 2: EDGE OF DOWNTOWN

0.035 0.07 0.14 0.21
Miles - -- -
CITY OF SALINAS· EDGE OF DOWNTOWN/ FRONT ANO JOHN STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANO REZONE

INITIAL STUOY
•
Created 11/23/ 2022

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  20 FIGURE 3: FOODS CO SHOPPING CENTER

Source: City of Salinas, County of Monte rey Open Data; Esri, Maxar, GeoEye , Earthstar Geograph ies, CN ES/Airbu s DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ()
0 0 .05 0 .1 0.2 0.3
Miles

CITY OF SALINAS - LARGE SHOPPING CENTER/FOODS CO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
f?JRECISJ ttN
_,CIVIL ENGINE ERING, INC _
-
Created 7/ 18/ 2022

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  21 FIGURE 4: LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER

D Project Site
City Boundary
Source: City of Salinas, County of Monterey Open Data; Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Comm unity 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
Miles
CITY OF SALINAS· LARGE SHOPPING CENTER/LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY

P RECISIO N
--S VJ ... E,,G l\EEt:H~G. l~C
Created 7/18/2022

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  22 FIGURE 5: SEARS/NORTHRIDGE MALL

Source: City of Salinas, County of Monterey Open Data; Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Eart hstar Geog raphies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and t he GIS User Community 0 0 0.03 0.06 0 .12 0 .18
Miles
PRE CISJttN
-SIVIL ENG N:=E.RING, IN(:

CITY OF SALINAS - LARGE SHOPPING CENTER/SEARS (NORTHRIDGE MALL) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIA L STUDY
Created 9/12/2022

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  23 FIGURE 6: ALISAL MARKETPLACE AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  24 FIGURE 7: EDGE OF DOWNTOWN AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  25 FIGURE 8: FOODS CO SHOPPING CENTER AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  26 FIGURE 9: LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  27 FIGURE 10: SEARS/NORTHRIDGE MALL AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  28 FIGURE 11: LT-1

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐1
February 1, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  29 FIGURE 12: LT-2

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐2
February 1, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-
~
.......

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  30 FIGURE 13: LT-3

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐3
February 1, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  31 FIGURE 14: LT-4

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐4
February 1, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  32 FIGURE 15: LT-5

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐5
February 1, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  33 FIGURE 16: LT-6

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐6
February 2, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  34 FIGURE 17: LT-7

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐7
February 2, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
--+­
....._

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  35 FIGURE 18: LT-8

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐8
February 2, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
--+­
.......

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  36 FIGURE 19: LT-9

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐9
February 2, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
-

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23  37 FIGURE 20: LT-10

20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐10
February 2, 2023
Lmax
Leq
L90
--+­
....._

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23

APPENDIX A

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY

AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL:  T h e  c o m p o s i t e  o f  n o i s e  f r o m  a l l  s o u r c e s  n e a r  a n d  f a r .   I n  t h i s c o n t e x t ,  t h e  a m b i e n t  n o i s e  l e v e l  c o n s t i t u t e s  t h e  n o r m a l  o r existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL:  C o m m u n i t y  N o i s e  E q u i v a l e n t  L e v e l .   T h e  a v e r a g e  e q u i v a l e n t sound  level  during  a  24‐hour  day,  obtained  after  addition  of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten de cibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB:  A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 time s the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of th e sound  measured  to  the  reference  pressure,  which  is  20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/L
dn:  Day/Night Average Sound Level.  The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

L
eq:  Equivalent  Sound  Level.    The  sound  level  containing  the  same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample perio d.

Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE:    The  CNEL  and  DNL  represent  daily  levels  of  noise  exposure averaged  on  an  annual  basis,  while  Leq  represents  the  average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

L
max:      The maximum noise level rec orded during a noise event.

L
n:      The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval  (L90,  L50,  L10,  etc.).    For  example,  L 10 e q u a l s  t h e  l e v e l exceeded 10 percent of the time.

22‐64 (Mixed‐Use GPA & Rezone Project, Salinas) 2‐25‐23

A-2

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY

NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS:    Lines  drawn  about  a  noise  source  indicating  constant  levels  o f noise exposure.  CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR):  The noise reduction between i ndoor and outdoor environments o r  b e t w e e n  t w o  r o o m s  t h a t  i s  t h e  n u m e r i c a l  d i f f e r e n c e ,  i n decibels, of the average sound pr essure levels in those areas o r rooms.  A measurement of “noise  level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure pl us the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL:    Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level.  T he level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an a i r c r a f t  o v e r f l i g h t ,  w i t h  r e f e r e n c e  t o  a  d u r a t i o n  o f  o n e  s e c o n d.

More  specifically,  it  is  the  time‐integrated  A‐weighted  squared sound  pressure  for  a  stated  time  interval  or  event,  based  on  a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL:    The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound l evel meter using the A‐weighting filter network.  The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC):    The  single‐number  rating  of  sound  transmission  loss  for  a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIXB

EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS

NOISE SOURCE SOUND LEVEL
AMPLIFIED ROCK 'N ROLL ► 120 dB
JET TAK.EOFF @ 200 FT ►
100 dB
BUSY URBAN STREET ►
80d.B
FREEWAY TRAFFIC @ 50 FT ►
CONVERSATION @ 6 FT ► 60d.B
TYPICAL OFFICE INTERIOR ►
SOFT RADIO MUSIC ► 40d.B
RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ►
WHISPER @ 6 FT ► 20d.B
HUMAN BREATHING ►
0d.B

SUBJECTIVE

DESCRIPTION

DEAFENING

VERY LOUD
LOUD

MODERATE
FAINT

VERY FAINT

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Foods Co | 170

7.6 Appendix F: Trip Generation Memo
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., on March 3, 2023.

Trip Generation Analysis for Foods Co Mixed Use Rezone 1

1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500

TO: City of Salinas
FROM: Bonique Emerson, AICP, Precision Civil Engineering Shin Tu, AICP Candidate, Precision Civil Engineering
RE: Trip Generation Analysis for Foods Co Mixed Use Rezone DATE: April 3, 2023
The following memo summarizes the trip generation for existing operations on site and the proposed Project. The Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT) for th is memo were calculated using data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and 11th Edition.

Existing Trip Generation
Table 1 provides the land uses and size of all existing structures on the Project site, as well as the trip generation of each use. ITE land use code 820 – Shopping Center was used to describe the site’s existing commercial uses, including Foods Co, restaurants, bank, and other services . The existing operations of the Project site are estimated to generate 5,996 ADT.

Table 1 Existing Trip Generation
ITE Land Use
Commercial
(Square
Footage)
Trip Generation
(ADT)
Trip Generation
(ADT)
820 - Shopping Center
(>150k) 162,019 37.01 5,996

Trip Generation of Proposed Project
Table 2 provides the Project trip generation pursuant to the proposed project description.

The ITE land use that was used for this analysis is the Mid Rise with Ground Floor Commercial land use (ITE Code 231, 10 th Edition). A Mid Rise with Ground Floor Commercial is a mixed-use multifamily housing building with between four and 10 floors of residential living space and commercial space open to the public on the ground level.

The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,982 ADT.

Table 2 Trip Generation of Proposed Project
ITE Land Use Residential
(DU)
Trip Generation
(ADT)
Trip Generation
(ADT)
231- Mid Rise with Ground
Floor Commercial 576 3.44 1,982
Conclusion
t-i1HE6l-5' I ttJ\,
~ IL ENG IN E'. RIN G, 'lf5_- _

Trip Generation Analysis for Foods Co Mixed Use Rezone 2

1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Full buildout under the implementation of the proposed Project will generate 4,014 less ADT than existing operations on the Project site.
µpti£bl5 lttt\l
~ IL ENG IN E'. RIN G, lli£_- _

City of Salinas General Plan Amendment No. 2022-002 and Rezone No. 2022-002 for Laurel West Shopping Center
INITIAL STUDY – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AUGUST 2023

Prepared for

City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

SALINAS
RICH lN .LANO . IOCH lN VALugs

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 2 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8

1.1 Regulatory Information ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 8

1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8

1.3 Document Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10

2.1 Project Title ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................ ................................ ........................... 10

2.4 Study Prepared By ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10

2.5 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10

2.6 Latitude and Longitude ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 10

2.7 General Plan Designation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15

2.8 Zoning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15

2.9 Description of Project ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20

2.10 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ................................ ................................ ................ 21

2.11 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ................................ ................................ ... 22

2.12 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................ ................................ .. 22 3 DETERMINATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 27

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................ ................................ ............... 27

3.2 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ ................................ .................... 29

4.1 AESTHETICS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 29

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 29

4.1.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 33

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 34

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................ 35

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35

4.2.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 36

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 37

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 3

4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 38

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 38

4.3.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 45

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 46

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47

4.4.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 55

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 58

4.5.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 62

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 66

4.6 ENERGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 67

4.6.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 67

4.6.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 68

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 70

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 71

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 72

4.7.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 80

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 80

4.8.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 81

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 85

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ................................ ................................ ...................... 86

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 86

4.9.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 90

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 92

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ ............................ 93

4.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 94

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 4

4.10.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 97

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 102

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 103

4.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 103

4.11.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 103

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 105

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 106

4.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 106

4.12.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 106

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 107

4.13 NOISE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 108

4.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 108

4.13.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 112

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 115

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 116

4.14.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 116

4.14.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 117

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 118

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 119

4.15.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 119

4.15.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 122

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 124

4.16 RECREATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 125

4.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125

4.16.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 126

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 127

4.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 128

4.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 128

4.17.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 135

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 137

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 5

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ ................................ ................................ . 138

4.18.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 138

4.18.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 138

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 139

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................ ................................ .............................. 140

4.19.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 140

4.19.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 142

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 146

4.20 WILDFIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 147

4.20.1 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 147

4.20.2 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 149

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 149

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................ ................................ ............... 150

4.21.1 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 150 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM................................ ................................ . 152 6 REPORT PREPARATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 163 7 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 164

7.1 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files ................................ ................................ ......................... 164

7.2 Appendix B: CNDDB Occurrence Report ................................ ................................ ................... 165

7.3 Appendix C: CHRIS Search Record ................................ ................................ ............................. 166

7.4 Appendix D: NAHC SLF Results Letter ................................ ................................ ....................... 167

7.5 Appendix E: Noise Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ . 168

7.6 Appendix F: Trip Generation Memo ................................ ................................ .......................... 169

Figures
Figure 2-1 Laurel West Shopping Center Project Location ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 Figure 2-2 Laurel West Shopping Center Project Aerial ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 Figure 2-3 Alisal Marketplace APN Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 Figure 2-4 City of Salinas General Plan Land Use Designation Map (Existing) ................................ ......................... 16 Figure 2-5 City of Salinas General Plan Land Use Designation Map (Proposed) ................................ ...................... 17

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 6 Figure 2-6 City of Salinas Zoning District Map (Existing) ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 Figure 2-7 City of Salinas Zoning District Map (Proposed) ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Figure 4-1 Mountain Ranges to the East ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 30 Figure 4-2 Mountain Ranges to the South ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 31 Figure 4-3 Water Features in Project Vicinity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 49 Figure 4-4 CNDDB Species Occurrences ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 51 Figure 4-5 Vegetation Communities in the City of Salinas ................................ ................................ ....................... 54 Figure 4-6 County of Monterey Archeological Sensitivity Map ................................ ................................ ................ 61 Figure 4-7 City of Salinas, General Plan, Seismic Hazard Zones ................................ ................................ ............... 73 Figure 4-8 Monterey County HMP, Liquefaction Susceptibility in the City of Salinas ................................ .............. 74 Figure 4-9 Web Soil Survey Soil Map for Project Site ................................ ................................ ............................... 76 Figure 4-10 Hazardous Sites ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 89 Figure 4-11 Salinas District Location and PWS Boundaries ................................ ................................ ...................... 96 Figure 4-12 Flood Zone Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 101 Figure 4-13 Future Noise Contour and Impact Areas................................ ................................ ............................. 111 Figure 4-14 High Injury Network Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 131 Figure 4-15 City of Salinas VMT Screening Map - Residential VMT per Capita ................................ ...................... 134 Figure 4-16 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Surrounding the City of Salinas ................................ ............... 148

Tables
Table 2-1 Project Site Attribute Summary: APN, Address, Acreage, Land Use, Zoning ................................ ............ 14 Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties ........................ 22 Table 4-1 Criteria Air Pollutants Thresholds of Significance ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 Table 4-2 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated ................................ ................................ . 42 Table 4-3 Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated ................................ ............................... 42 Table 4-4 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site ................................ ................. 52 Table 4-5 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site ................................ ........... 52 Table 4-6 Project Energy Consumption................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 69 Table 4-7 Consistency with General Plan Energy Conservation Policies ................................ ................................ .. 69 Table 4-8 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Consistency Analysis................................ ................................ .......... 83

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 7 Table 4-9 Existing versus Future Potable Water Demand ................................ ................................ ........................ 98 Table 4-10 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Mixed Use Development .............................. 104 Table 4-11 Exterior Noise Standards (General Plan Table N-2) ................................ ................................ .............. 109 Table 4-12 Noise/ Land Use Compatibility Matrix ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 110 Table 4-13 Maximum Noise Standards ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 112 Table 4-14 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM ................................ ................................ ................... 114 Table 4-15 Estimated Wastewater Flow by Land Use ................................ ................................ ............................ 144

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 8 1 INTRODUCTION
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Salinas (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed City of Salinas General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2022-002 and Rezone No. 2022-002 for Laurel West Shopping Center (“Project” or “proposed Project”). GPA No. 2022 -002 requests a land use change fr om Retail and General Commercial/Light Industrial to Mixed-Use. Rezone No. 2022-002 requests a rezone from CR – Commercial Retail to MX – Mixed Use, consistent with the proposed land use designation. The Project site consists of six (6) parcels that total approximately 16.2 acres. The purpose of the GPA and Rezone is to provide additional opportunities for housing and mixed-use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element. This Project is funded by SB 2 grant funding for the purpose of increasing housing production in the city. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. The City of Salinas is the Lead Agency for this proposed Project. The site and the proposed Project are described in detail in SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.

1.1 Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.), also known as the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.

A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, th erefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substanti al evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study
This Project is funded by SB 2 grant funding for the purpose of providing additional opportunities for housing and mixed-use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element. Currently, the site is occupied by big-box retail buildings, including Kmart, and smaller retail and commercial services, collectively

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 9 identified as “ Laurel West Shopping Center .” Recently, several big box retail establishments had either declared bankruptcy or were at risk of declaring bankruptcy. In consideration of these co nditions, the City thought it an appropriate moment to re -imagine these properties as mixed-use villages with critical housing units. Along with two (2) other sites, namely Foods Co and Sears (Northridge Mall), the City considers the Project site, Laurel W est Shopping Center, to have significant redevelopment potential and proposes to change the land use designation and zone district for six (6) parcels that total approximately 16.2 acres to facilitate future mixed-use development.

Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, this Initial Study analyzes the potential buildout of the Project site at a programmatic level, using reasonable assumptions so that future development of the site can tier from this Initial Study pursuant to CEQA Guidel ines Section 15168(c)(1) and 15168(d) for evaluations of environmental issues associated with later activities/subsequent projects. However, depending on the final design of future physical development, additional project specific CEQA review may be required as determined by the City through the entitlement review and approval process.

1.3 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five (5) chapters plus appendices. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION provides bases of the IS/MND’s regulatory information and an overview of the Project. SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM provides a detailed description of Project components. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION concludes that the Initial Study is a mitigated negative declaration, identifies the environmental factors potentially affected based on the analyses contained in this IS, and includes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon those analyses. SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analyses for all impact areas and the mandatory findings of significance. A brief discussion of the reasons why the Project impact is anticipated to be potentially significant, less than significant with mitiga tion incorporated, less than significant, or why no impacts are expected is included. SECTION 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM presents the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project. The CalEEMod Output Files, CNDDB Occurrence Report, CHRIS Search Record, NAHC SLF Results Letter, Noise Assessment, and Trip Generation Memo are provided as Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, and Appendix F respectively, at the end of this document.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 10 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including project location, project objectives, and required project approvals.

2.1 Project Title
Laurel West Shopping Center General Plan Amendment and Rezone Project (General Plan Amendment No. 2022- 002 and Rezone No. 2022-002)

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency/Applicant
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
Attn. Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(831) 775-4259

2.4 Study Prepared By
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500

2.5 Project Location
The Project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Salinas, Monterey County, California (Figure 2-1). The site is generally located east of North David Road between West Laurel Drive/Calle Del Adobe and Larkin Street at 1040 North Davis Road, Salinas, CA 93907 (“Laurel West Shopping Center ”), consisting of six (6) parcels that total approximately 16.2 acres (Figure 2-3). The site is identified by the Monterey County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 261-711-037-000, 261-711-070-000, 261-711-065-000, 261-711-024-000, 261-711-017-000, and 261-711-025-000. The site is a portion of Township 14 South, Range 3 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Site attributes are summarized in Table 2-1. It should be noted that the Project site is within a Federal Opportunity Zone (ID 06053001802).

2.6 Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project site is 36.696443679121614, -121.66789670313385.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 11

Figure 2-1 Laurel West Shopping Center Project Location c:::::J Project Site
[:~~J Oty of Sal inas Bounda ry
Source: City ot Sain as, County of Monterey Open Data

0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Mies - -- -
CITYOF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN IWIENOMENT ANO REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
.,. - ..---::- ----- -
;-ytlEC:_]I Ct,'\i .... ~Jr· _ ,~.,:,_: __ _
Created 4/3/2023

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 12

Figure 2-2 Laurel West Shopping Center Project Aerial
Source: City of Sain as, County of Monterey Open Data
0,0225 0,046 0,09 0,135
Miles - -- -
CITY Of SALINAS-LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
., - ~ _.__ .
. "YIE C:;,J/CJ,"...;
~.,.~· Jr r --~'-'__.:_,..!.:" ... ~·
Created 4/ 3/2023

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 13

Figure 2-3 Alisal Marketplace APN Map
«rm
2 1-711 -0 7
8 I
~
~ Project Site
Source: City ot Saln as, County of Monterey Open Data

0.0 225 0.045
261-711 -024
261- 711-070

0.09 am

0.135
Miles
CITY Of SALINAS · LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
w ~ 1w
Created 4/ 3/ 2023

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
August 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 14 Table 2-1 Project Site Attribute Summary: APN, Address, Acreage, Land Use, Zoning APN Site Address Acreage Existing Land Use
General Plan
Land Use
(Existing)
Zone District
(Existing)
261-711-037-000 1000 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907 0.29 Fujiyama Sushi and Hibachi Retail Commercial Retail 261-711-070-000
1028 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907
1040 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907
1038 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907

6.31 In-Shape Gym , La Plaza Bakery Grill & Deli ,
Soccer City , Vacuum Cen ter, Princess Nails ,
Magat Restaurant , Lopez Tax Service , Noodle
House, Mountain Mike's Pizza, Vape & Beyond
Smoke Shop , Glamour Glow Tanning , True
Image Beauty Salon , Tackle Box , $10 Store ,
Metro PCS , Dentist, Wash & Dry Start
Laundromat
Retail Commercial Retail
261-711-065-000 1042 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907 0.48 Shell Gas Station Retail Commercial Retail 261-711-024-000
1050 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907
1080 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907

8.45 Kmart Retail Commercial Retail
261-711-017-000 1060 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907 0.05 Utility Retail Commercial Retail 261-711-025-000 1040 N Davis Road,
Salinas, CA 93907 0.60 Tacos El Jalisciense Davis, Dental Care Retail Commercial Retail Total Acreage 16.2

•• ••

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 15

2.7 General Plan Designation
The Project site has a City of Salinas General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of Retail ( Figure 2 -4).

According to the General Plan, the Retail land use designation “provides for a variety of retail uses such as retail stores, restaurants, hotels, personal services, business services and fi nancial services. The maximum intensity of development is a floor area ratio of 0.4.”
The City of Salinas (Applicant) proposes General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2022 -002 to change the land use designation from Retail to Mixed Use (Figure 2-5). The purpose of the GPA is to provide additional opportunities for housing and mixed-use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element.

According to the General Plan, the Mixed-Use land use designation “allows for development including a mixture of retail, office and residential uses in the same building, on the same parcel or in the same area. The intent of this designation is to create activity centers with pedestrian-oriented uses in certain portions of the city.” This land use designation allows for a maximum intensity and density of 1.0 floor area ration (FAR) and 10 units per acre (du/ac).

2.8 Zoning
The Project site is in the CR – Commercial Retail zoning district (Figure 2-6). According to Section 37-30.190 of the Salinas Municipal Code (SMC), the CR zoning district “allows a wide range of retail stores, restaurants, hotels and motels, commercial recreation, personal services, business services, offices, financial services, mixed use residential, and/or limited residential uses.”
The City of Salinas (Applicant) proposes Rezone No. 2022-002 to change the zoning district from CR to MX – Mixed Use (Figure 2 -7). The purpose of the Rezone is to provide additional opportunities for housing and mixed -use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element. According to SMC Section 37-30.230, the MX zone district “provides opportunities for mixed use, office, public and semipublic uses, and commercial uses that emphasize retail, entertainment, and service activities.” Medium and high-density residential uses are encoura ged within MX districts to facilitate pedestrian -oriented activity centers. The proposed zon ing district would be consistent with the land use designation, MX – Mixed Use.

On the Project site, there are existing restaurant and financial services with drive-through uses and service station with vehicle washing uses, among other uses, which are not permitted in the MX zoning district per SMC Section 37-30.240 and would become legal, non -conforming uses subject to SMC Section 37-50.160. Other existing uses, such as service stations, may require a Conditional Use Permit for any proposed changes to their use.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 16

Figure 2-4 City of Salinas General Plan Land Use Designation Map (Existing) w @.tim;QJ lw
□P ro je ct Site Resid entia l Medium Density
Gene ral Plan Land U se Designation {Existing) - Retail - Residentia l l ow Density - Public/ Semipublic
Source: City of Sali'las, County of Monterey Open Data

0.0275 0.055 0.11 0.155
Miles - -- -
CITY OF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
'"
Created 4/ 3/ 2023

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 17

Figure 2-5 City of Salinas General Plan Land Use Designation Map (Proposed) w @.tlm;Ql @7
c:] Project Site - Residentia l Medium Density
General Plan Land Use Designation {Proposed) - Ret ail
- Residentia l Low Density - Pub lic/ Semipublic
~ Mixed Use
Source: City of Sali'las, County of Monterey Open Data

0.0275 0.055 0.11 0.155
Miles - -- -
CITY OF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
"'
Created 4/4/ 2023

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 18

Figure 2-6 City of Salinas Zoning District Map (Existing) 1W ~ @I/
□P ro je ct Site - Resid entia l Med ium Density {RM)
Zoning District {Existing) - Comme rcia l Ret ail
- Resid entia l Lo w De nsity {Rl ) - Pub lic/Sem ip ub lic Source: City of Sali'las, County of Monterey Open Data

0.0275 0.055 0.11 0.165
Miles - -- -
CITY OF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
,,,
... ---~--P f!lEC!SIU N
. • ~ Vil ENCi Jr.Hll•J!.. N. ; _..

Created 5/ 25/ 2023

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 19

Figure 2-7 City of Salinas Zoning District Map (Proposed) aw
1W ~ ®ti
c:] Project Site - Residentia l Med ium Density {RM)
Zoning District {Proposed) - Comme rcia l Retail
- Residentia l Low Dens ity {Rl) - Pub lic/Sem ipub lic ~ Mixed Use
Source: City of Sali'las, County of Monterey Open Data

0.0275 0.055 0.11 0.155
Miles - -- -
CITY OF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
,,,
Created S/ 25/ 2023
CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 20

2.9 Description of Project
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2022-002 and Rezone No. 2022-002 are filed by the City of Salinas (Applicant) and pertain to six (6) parcels that are generally located east of North David Road between West Laurel Drive/Calle Del Adobe and Larkin Street at 1040 North Davis Road, Salinas, CA 93907 (“Project site”) and total approximately

16.2 acres. The site is identified by the Monterey County Assessor as APNs 261-711-037-000, 261-711-070-000, 261-711-065-000, 261-711-024-000, 261-711-017-000, and 261-711-025-0 00. GPA No. 2022-002 requests a land use change from Retail to Mixed-Use. Rezone No. 2022-002 requests a rezone from CR – Commercial Retail to MX – Mixed Use, consistent with the proposed land use designation. No physical development is proposed.

Project Assumptions
This Project is funded by SB 2 grant funding for the purpose of providing additional opportunities for housing and mixed-use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element. Currently, the site is occupied by big-box retail buildings, including Kmart, and smaller retail and commercial services, collectively identified as “Laurel West Shopping Center.” Recently, several big box retail establishments had either declared bankruptcy or were at risk of declaring bankruptcy. In consideration of these conditions, the City thought it an appropriate moment to re-imagine these properties as mixed-use villages with critical housing units. Along with two (2) other sites, namely Foods Co and Sears (Northridge Mall), the City considers the Project site, Laurel West Shopping Center, to have significant redevelopment potential and proposes to change the land use designation and zone district for six (6) parcels that total approximately 16.2 acres to facilitate future mixed-use development.

Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, this Initial Study analyzes the potential buildout of the Project site at a programmatic level, using reasonable assumptions so that future development of the site can tier from this Initial Study pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1) and 15168(d) for evaluations of environmental issues associated with later activities/subsequent projects. However, depending on the final design of future physical development, additional project specific CEQA review may be required as determined by the City through the entitlement review and approval process.

For the purposes of the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the vision for the Project site is mixed-use development containing mixed use buildings, whereby a “mixed use building” is defined as “a structure containing both residential and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses (including retail, restaurants, offices, services, and similar uses deemed compatible with residential uses)” pursuant to SMC Section 37-10.370 . In mixed-use buildings, the commercial use or uses are typically located on the ground floor of the structure with the residential dwellings predominantly located on the second or higher floors.

Therefore, the assumed “project” to be analyzed in this Initial Study is a mixed-use development containing four (4)-story mixed use buildings with commercial uses located on the ground floor and residential dwellings on the second and higher floors on a Project site that totals approximately 16.2 acres, or 705,672 square feet (sf.) of site area. The following Project assumptions are consistent with the development standards contained in SMC Section 37-30.250.
• The estimated commercial buildout potential is approximately 176,418 sf. of ground floor commercial, which is based on a 0.25 floor area ratio (FAR) to allow for the maximum residential density permitted in the MX Zone District (calculation: 705,672 sf. multiplied by 0.25 FAR = 176,418 sf.).

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 21 • The estimated residential buildout potential is approximately 691 residential dwelling units, which is based on three (3) floors of multi -family residential units (calculation: 705,672 sf. multiplied by 0.25 FAR = 176,418 sf.; 705,672 sf. minus 176,418 sf. = 529,254 sf.; 529,254 sf./1,000 sf. = 529 units; plus 10 units to the acre: 16.2 acres multiplied by 10 units = 162 units; 162 units plus 529 units = 691 units).1 The resulting residential density is 42.7 dwelling units per acre (calculation: 691 dwelling units divided by 16.2 acres = 42.7). • Based on buildout assumptions of commercial sf. and residential units, an estimated 1,132 parking stalls would be required pursuant to SMC Section 37 -50.360 (calculation: 176,418 sf. divided by 400 sf. plus 691 dwelling units = 1,132 parking stalls).

2.10 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Project Setting
The Proj ect site is currently fully developed and paved , containing existing structures and on - and off -site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses (Table 2-1). The ariel image of the Project site is shown in Figure 2-2. Street frontage includes North Davis Road , a six (6)-lane north-south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. State Route (SR) 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as urban landscaping with heavy alteration and disturbance given the existing retail uses. There are existing trees and shrubs throughout the site and along rights-of-ways. No water features are present.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is generally surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, and service uses. As referenced in Table 2-2, all properties to the north are planned and zoned for retail. Properties south and east are planned and zoned for residential uses, and properties west of the Project site are planned and zoned for a mix of retail, public/semipublic, and residential uses.

1 Pursuant to SMC Section 37-30.250, mixed use developments shall have a maximum commercial FAR of 1.0 plus ten dwelling units per net acre. Further, as described in Section 37 -30.260, within a mixed -use building providing commercial uses of at least 0.25 F AR, allowable floor area may be substituted for residential dwelling units at a ratio of one dwelling unit for each one thousand square feet of allowable floor area to the maximum FAR of 1.0. For example, the maximum development potential of a one -acre lot is forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square feet of commercial floor area plus ten dwelling units. A proposed mixed -use building providing at least 10,890 sq. ft. of commercial floor area could also include forty -three dwelling units as follows: 43, 560 sq. ft. × 0.25 = 10,890 sq. ft.; 43,560 sq. ft. - 10,890 sq. ft. = 32,670 sq. ft./1,000 sq. ft. = 33 dwelling + 10 dwelling units = 43 dwelling units.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 22 Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from
the Project site Existing Land Use Planned Land Use Zone District North Ponding Basin Retail Commercial Retail
South Single-Family Dwellings Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density East Single-Family Dwellings Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density West Commercial (IHOP, Carl’s Jr.), Service
(US Postal Service), Apartments
Retail, Public/Semipublic,
Residential Medium Density
Commercial Retail,
Public/Semipublic,
Residential Medium Density

2.11 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The Project would require approval by the City of Salinas City Council. No permits would be required from other agencies for approval of the Project. Howe ver, future redevelopment of the Project site would require review, permits, and/or approvals, such as grading, building, encroachment, and sign permits. Other approvals may be required as identified through the entitlement review and approval process.

2.12 Consultation with California Native American Tribes The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Trad itional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1 , the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).

According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the pot ential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within Monterey County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 8, 2022. The listed tribes include Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Cost anoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ohlone/Costanoan - Esselen Nation, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Xolon-Salinan Tribe, and Runsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone.

The NAHC also conducted a Sacred Lands File (SFL) search which was positive.

The City of Salinas conducted formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on June 14, 2022, utilizing the consultation list of tribes received from the NAHC. The same nine (9) tribes listed above were included in the formal consultation. Consultation for AB 52 ended on July

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 23 14, 2022, and consultation for SB 18 ended on September 12, 2022. Chairperson Louise Miranda -Ramirez of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation requested formal consultation on September 13, 2022. Formal consultation was held by telephone on June 21, 2023. Nine (9) mitigation measures were requested through the formal consultation, as listed below and incorporated in Section 4.5 and Section 4.18. No response was received from the other tribes.

CUL-1 Historical Resources Identification and Treatment Plan Prior to permit approval for development on the Project site, a historical resources evaluation shall be completed for that individual site to confirm if existing buildings and/or structures withing these sites qualify as historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5(a) of CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or histo rian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive -level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed project area. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented in the Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

Any relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be implemented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or histori c architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character - defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence, in addition to the historical resources evaluation.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible, the applicant or developer shall provide a report explaining why compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible for the City’s review and approval. Site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken, including, but not limited to, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Buildings Survey-Like report. The report shall be commissioned by the project applicant or their consultant to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the Historic American Buildings Survey Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed b y a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

CUL-2 Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Prior to the issuance of any g rading or construction permits for each individual site, a Phase I cultural resources study shall be performed by a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). The Phase I cultural resources study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site when appropriate and sufficient background research and field sampling to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. Archival res earch shall include a records

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 24 search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) no more than two years old and a Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The Phase I technical report documenting the study shall include recommendations that shall be implemented prior to and/or during construction to avoid or reduce impacts to archaeological resources.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, archaeological construction monitoring, sensitivity training, or additional testing and mitigation (ou tlined in Mitigation Measures CUL -3 through CUL -7). The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits.

The City shall include recommendations in the Phase I technical report as Conditions of Approval to be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

CUL-3 Extended Phase I Testing
If recommended by the Phase I study for each individual site (Mitigation Measure CUL-2), the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the presence/absence and extent of archaeological resources on the project site. XPI testing shall include a series of shovel test pits and/or hand augured units and/or mechanical trenching to establish the boundaries of archaeological site(s) on the project site.

If the boundaries of the archaeological site are already well understood from previous archaeological work, an XPI will not be requ ired. All archaeological excavation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist(s) under the direction of a principal investigator meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). If an XPI report is prepared, it shall be submitted t o the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit. Recommendations therein shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, site avoidance, Phas e II Site Evaluation, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL-4, CUL- 5, CUL-7, and CUL-8). The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined after implementing Mitigation Measures CUL -2 and/or CUL -3) or archaeological resources encountered during ground -disturbing activities shall be avoided by project -related construction activities, where feasible. A barrier (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be placed between the work location and any resources within 60 feet of a work location to minimize the potential for inadvertent impacts. If the resource cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 shall be implemented.

CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI for each individual site (Mitigation Measures CUL -2 and/or CUL-3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be avoided by the project (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that have not been adequately evaluated for the NRHP or CRHR listing at the project site, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase II investigation to determine if intact deposits remain and if they may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique archaeological resources. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s).

A Phase I evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations and mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit. The sample excavation would be carried out to characterize the nature of the site(s), define the artifact and feature contents, determine horizontal and vertical boundaries, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 25 If the archaeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor or other interested tribal representative determine it is appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the site(s) shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR and if applicable, NRHP. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” Recommendations in the Phase II report shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Phase III Data Recovery, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL -6 through CUL -8). The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation for each individual site (Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction in accordance with CUL-4, the project applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City prior to construction. Any necessary Phase III data recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeolog y (National Park Service 1983). Data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with a research design reviewed and approved by the City, prepared in advance of fieldwork, and using the appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s).

As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL-7 and CUL-8). The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC upon completion.

CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or Phase III studies for each individual site (Mitigation Measures CUL -2, CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6), the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project-related, ground-disturbing activities which may include the following but not limited to: grubbing, vegetation removal, trenching, grading, and/or excavations. The archaeological monitor shall coordinate with any Native American monitor as required. Monitoring logs must be completed by the archaeologist daily. Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced for the project if the qualified archaeologist finds it appropriate to reduce the moni toring efforts.

Upon completion of ground disturbance for the project, a final report must be submitted to the City for review and approval documenting the monitoring efforts, cultural resources finding, and resource disposition. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 26 CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet shall be halted and the project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall immediately to evaluate the find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the dis covery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work may be warranted, such as data recovery excavation, to mitigate any significant impacts to significant resources. If the resource is of Native American origin, implementation of Mitigation Measures 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.

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 Public Resources Code 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 w ithin 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 repre sentative 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.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 27 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire

For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
“No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
“Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.
“Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
“Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

3.2 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

□
DI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.

D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Approved By:

Oscar Resendiz, Associate Planner Date
City of Salinas, Community Development Department
CITY OF SALINAS -General Plan l\mendment & Rcionc: Laurel West Shopping Center I 28

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 29 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock out -croppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non -urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings. (Public views are
those that are experienced from
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?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently fully developed and paved, containing existing structures and on - and off -site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping (see Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2). There are five (5) existing structures on the site that consist of low-rise buildings that are mostly contemporary with uniform massing, non -descript facades, with large parking lots between the structures and surrounding street frontage. Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north-south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. State Route (SR) 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. The Project site is generally surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, and service uses. A thin horizontal line of the Mountain Ranges can be seen to the east and south, but the view is obstructed by Highway 101, the flat topography of the site, and intervening development.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 30

Figure 4-1 Mountain Ranges to the East
West Laurel Drive, looking east. Source: Google Earth, 2021

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 31

Figure 4-2 Mountain Ranges to the South
North Davis Road, looking south (cross street: Prader Street). Source: Google Earth 2021

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 32 General Plan
The Salinas General Plan Community Design Element helps to protect and enhance the image and identity of Salinas by addressing the visual improvement of the major entrances to the community, the maintenance of sharply defined urban/agricultural edges, and the preservation and enhancement of view corridors from Highway 101.

Highway 101 is the primary “view corrid or” identified by the General Plan. The primary views from Highway 101 include: agricultural views, views of Northridge Shopping Center, Auto Center, and Westridge Shopping Center, and Carr Lake. No other vista points or resources are identified.

General Plan policies applicable to the visual appearance and character of the city include:

Policy CD-1.10: Require a balance of housing types and designs to avoid both monotony and visual chaos.

Policy CD -2.1: Maximize a strong sense of neighborhood identity and harmony by implementing architectural design and community layout techniques, such as building location and spacing, landscaping features, and lighting that create distinct neighborhoods, encourage interactions among residents, and facilitate safe street life.

Policy CD-2.2: Minimize potential light and sound impacts of new development on surrounding areas.

Policy CD -2.3: Require infill development to be consistent with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.

Policy CD-2.6: Preserve architecturally important historic buildings that are capable of being adapted for viable use.

Policy CD-2.7: Minimize the use and visual effect of sound attenuation walls.

Policy CD-2.8: Avoid large un-landscaped parking areas and blank building walls facing streets or adjoining properties.

Municipal Code
Salina Municipal Code (SMC) Section 37.50.480 – Outdoor Lighting contains enforceable requirements for all new development intended to prevent light and glare impacts. (a) 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 footcandles at ground level with uniform ligh ting levels. All building -mounted and freestanding parking lot lights (including the fixture, base, and pole) shall not exceed a maximum of twenty- five feet (a maximum of forty feet in the IG district) in height in all districts. Illumination at an R or NU (NE, NG-1, and NG-2) district property line shall not exceed one-half footcandle maximum. 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) sh all 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 s ubmitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 33 (e) Lighting in the focused growth overlay district, central city overlay (downtown core area) district, mixed use (MU), and new urbanism (NU) districts shall be supplemented by the lighting standards and regulations specified for these districts.

California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 with the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways a nd adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Salinas, inclusive of the Project area. However, State Route 68 (SR 68) is an eligible State Scenic Highway, located approximately 3.0 miles south of the Project area. 2

4.1.2 Impact Assessment
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Project site is fully developed and surrounded by urban development. A thin horizontal line of the mountain ranges can be seen to the east and south of the Project site, but the view is obstructed by Highway 101, the flat topography of the site, existing structures on the site, and intervening development. Furthermore, the General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas or views within the general vicinity of the Project site . As a result, the Project would not adversely affect scenic vistas and no impact would occur because of the Project. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Salinas. SR 68 is an eligible State Scenic Highway but is located approximately 3.0 miles south of the Project site and would not be impacted by the Project. As such, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock out -croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
c) In non-urbanized 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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized are a, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by existing development. Although no physical development is proposed, future development of the Project site would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Salinas. Through this process, future development would be subject to compliance with applicable policies and regulations that govern scenic quality including but not limited to the

2 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on April 4, 2023, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 34 General Plan, SMC, and California Building Code. Compliance would ensure that future development of the site would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are associated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, cars, and trucks). Although no physical development is proposed, future development of the Project site would incrementally increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting, and vehicular headlights. Such sources could create adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the area. Future development would be subject to site development standards contained in SMC Section 37-50.480 – Outdoor Lighting, specifically sub-section (a) which contains specific, enforceable requirements intended to prevent light and glare impacts, and sub-section (e) which refers to additional lighting standards for MX zone districts. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Title 24 lighting requirements which would also reduce impacts related to nighttime light.

The Title 24 lighting requirements cover ou tdoor spaces including regulations for mounted luminaires (i.e., high efficacy, motion sensor controlled, time clocks, energy management control systems, etc.). As such, conditions imposed on future development by the City pursuant to the SMC and Title 24 would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant impact.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 35

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farm -land), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?
X
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?
X

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the Salinas city limits and is planned and zoned for retail uses. The Project site is currently fully developed and paved, containing existing structures and on - and off-site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses. Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north- south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. State Route (SR) 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as urban landscaping with heavy alteration and disturbance given the existing retail uses. There are existing trees and shrubs throughout the site and along rights-of-ways. No water

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 36 features are present. Lastly, the Project site does not contain any agricultural or forestry resources such as agricultural land, forest land, or timberland.

Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program
The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland” which is defined by the FMMP as “farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained hig h yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 3 Maps are updated every two years. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site, and all properties in its immediate vicinity are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” 4 California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value . The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 years and automatically renews upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite. The Project site is not subject to the Williamson Act.

4.2.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
e) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importanc e (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farm land Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to the FMMP, the Project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” As such, the Project site is not located on lands designated as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. f) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to the Williamson Act. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur.

3 California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx 4 California Department of Conservation. (2018). California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 37 g) 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))? No Impact. The Project site doe s is not planned or zoned for forest land or timberland. Further, the Project site would not cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As a result, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impact would occur.
h) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land and is not planned or zoned for forest land or forest uses.

Implementation of the Project would therefore not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As a result, no impact would occur.
i) Involve other changes in the exi sting 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? No impact. The Project site is planned and zoned for urban uses and does not contain agricultural or forestry uses or resources. The properties in the vicinity of the Project site are also planned and zoned for urban uses and do not contain agricultural or forestry u ses or resources. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site and the properties in its immediate vicinity are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Therefore, future development of the Project site with mixed use development would be generally consistent with the existing environment of the surrounding, urbanized and non-agricultural or forestry uses. As a result, the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 38

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is formed by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) oversees air quality regulations across Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The NCCAB is in nonattainment status for the State ozone (O3) and inhalable particulates (PM10) pollutants, and in attainment for all other state and federal pollutants. The MBARD developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potential impacts to air quality. 5 This guidance document also includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short -term construction, long- term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts. The MBARD also adopted an Air Quality Management Plan 6 (AQMP) focused on achieving the State’s ozone standard , and updating air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs.

Thresholds of Significance
Accordingly, the MBARD-recommended thresholds of significance (i.e., CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on human

5 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. (2008). CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed April 4, 2023 , https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf 6 Monterey Bay Air Resources District. (2017). 2012 – 2015 Air Quality Management Plan. Acc essed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 39 health and welfare. Section 5.6 of the guidelines determines a less than significant impact is appropriate if all following criteria are met:
(1) Under Criteria Air Pollutants thresholds:
(2) No violation of any other State or national AAQS.
(3) Consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan.
(4) No other significant adverse impacts (e.g., create objectionable odors; alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate).

Each of these criteria is further described as follows. (1) Criteria Air Pollutants : The MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 4-1. The thresholds of significance are based on a per day basis. These thresholds are utilized in the impact assessment to determine whether the proposed Project would result in significant impacts. The following summarizes these thresholds:

Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM 10): Construction impacts would be considered less than significant if the project e mits less than 82 lb./day of PM 10 or will not cause a violation of PM 10 AAQS at existing receptors; and the equipment used is ”typical construction equipment”.

Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter ( PM10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered less than significant if the project directly emits less than 82 lb./day of PM10 on-site or will not cause a violation of PM 10 AAQS or contribute 82 lb./day to an existing or projected violation at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors.

Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered less than significant if the project directly emits less than 137 lb./day of VOC or NOx.

Long-Term Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered less than significant if the project directly emits less than 550 lb./day of CO or will not cause a violation of CO AAQS at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors; Long-Term Emissions of Sox: Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered less than significant if the project directly emits less than 150 lb./day of SOx or will not cause a violation of SO2 AAQS at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors.

Table 4-1 Criteria Air Pollutants Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions (lbs./day) Operational Emission (lbs./day) CO N/A 550
NOX N/A 137
ROG N/A 137
SOX N/A 150
PM10 82 82
PM2.5 N/A N/A
Source: MBARD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2008

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 40 (2) Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO x) or PM 10 would exceed the MBARD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in population generation, housing, or employment growth exceeding 2015 AQMP forecasts , the project may conflict with the AQMP . Consistency with population forecasts is based on countywide forecasts and not individual cities. Further, the AQMP utilizes forecasts adopted by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).
(3) Odors: The inte nsity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants. MBARD’s Guidelines identify pollutants associated with objectionable odors to include sulfur compound and methane. Typical sources of odors include landfi lls, rendering plants, chemical plants, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, and refineries. 7 Odor impacts would be significant if the project emits pollutants in substantial amounts that cause nuisance or endanger the public’s health and safety, thus analysis should assess impacts on existing or foreseeable sensitive receptors. (4) Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs): The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) provides guidance on CEQA and health risk assessments for proj ects. According to the CAPCOA Guidance document titled “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” there are two types of land use project that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts. 8 These project types are as follows:
• Type A: Land use projects with toxic emissions that impact receptors, and • Type B: Land use project that will place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

In this Guidance document, Type A projects examples are (project impacts receptors):
• combustion related power plants,
• gasoline dispensing facilities,
• asphalt batch plants,
• warehouse distribution centers,
• quarry operations, and
• other stationary sources that emit toxic substances.

Similarly, MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines established criteria for significance for TACs. A project would have a significant impact if it were located near a sensitive receptor near an unregulated source of TAC emission, such as diesel-fuel fueled vehicles parking, gas stations, and dry cleaners. For construction, equipment or processes that emit non-carcinogenic TACs could result in significant impacts and emissions of carcinogenic TAC that can result in

7 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. (2008). CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed April 4, 2023 , https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf 8 CAPCOA. (2009). Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. Accessed October 12, 2022, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/with-stamp_CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09-min.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 41 a cancer risk greater than one incident per 100,000 population are considered significan t. For operational equipment and processes, impacts would be less than significant if it complies with Rule 1000.

Methodology
MBARD’s Guidelines recommend using the CalEEMod software program to calculate project emissions. CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The Project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0.
(1) CalEEMod Assumptions: Although no specific development project is curr ently proposed, s hort-term construction and long -term operational GHG emissions for the Project were estimated using CalEEMod TM (v.2020.4.0) (See Appendix A for output files) with the following assumptions:
• The Project site is 16.2 acres, or 705,672 sf.
• The estimated commercial buildout potential is approximately 176,418 sf. of ground floor commercial, which is based on a 0.25 floor area ratio (FAR) to allow for the maximum residential density permitted in the MX Zone District (calculation: 705,672 sf. multiplied by 0.25 FAR = 176,418 sf.). In CalEEMod, this use is modeled as the “Strip Mall” land use, which is a use that contains a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods, and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants. • The estimated residential buildout potential is approximately 691 residential dwelling units, which is based on three (3) floors of multi -family residential units (calculation: 705,672 sf. multiplied by 0.25 FAR = 176,418 sf.; 705,672 sf. minus 176,418 sf. = 529,254 sf.; 529,254 sf./1,000 sf. = 529 units; plus 10 units to the acre: 16.2 acres multiplied by 10 units = 162 units; 162 units plus 529 units = 691 units). The resulting residential density is 42.7 dwelling units per acre (calculation: 691 dwelling units divided by 16.2 acres = 42.7). In CalEEMod, this use is modeled as the “Apartments Mid Rise” land use (apartment buildings between 3 to 10 levels). • Based on buildout assumptions of commercial sf. and residential units, an estimated 1,132 parking stalls would be required pursuant to SMC Section 37 -50.360 (calculation: 176,418 sf. divided by 400 sf. plus 691 dwelling units = 1,132 parking stalls).
• In addition, most CalEEMod default factors were utilized. Note: the model assumes simultaneous buildout of all the parcels.

4.3.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The applicable air quality plan is the MBARD’s 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A project could be inconsistent with the AQMP if: 1) the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG, NOx) or PM 10 would exceed th e MBARD’s significan ce thresholds and 2) the

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 42 project would result in a change of land use and corresponding increases in population generation, housing, or employment growth exceeding 2015 AQMP forecasts.

For the proposed Project, operational and construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants were estimated using CalEEMod. As shown in Table 4-2, estimated total operational emissions for ROG, NOx, and PM10 are below all significance thresholds. Further, as shown in Table 4-3, estimated total construction-related emissions for PM10 are below the significance threshold. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project-generated emissions would not exceed the MBARD’s significance thresholds and therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Table 4-2
Table 4-2 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated Emissions Source (lbs. per day) CO NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Area 56.9723 0.6562 21.6831 0.3161 0.3161
Energy 0.7154 1.5732 0.1833 0.1267 0.1267
Mobile 256.3890 35.3667 30.1586 48.6446 13.2430
Total Operational Emissions 314.0767 37.5961 52.0250 49.0874 13.6857 Significance Threshold 550 137 137 150 82
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, ran on April 4, 2023 Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Table 4-3 Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, Unmitigated Emissions Source (lbs. per day) CO NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year 2024 32.7831 32.4257 3.4340 21.0351 11.2735 Construction Year 2025 31.5632 18.8815 257.5869 5.8346 1.9592 Maximum Emissions 32.7831 32.4257 257.5869 21.0351 11.2735 Significance Threshold N/A N/A N/A 82 N/A
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, ran on April 4, 2023 Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

While the Project would result in a change of land use, it would not generate corresponding increases in population generation, housing, or employment growth that exceeds 2015 AQMP forecasts. Although no physical development is proposed, the Project site could yield up to 176,418 square feet of commercial use and 691 residential units, which would generate approximately 513 employees and 2,868 residents (See Section 4.14). As described in Section

4.14, these increases are within the 2015 AQMP forecasts. Therefore, it can be determined that the Project would not result in a change of land use and corresponding increases in population generation, housing, or employment growth that would exceed 2015 AQMP forecasts. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

Overall, the Project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants or PM10 would not exceed the MBARD’s significance thresholds, and the Project would not result in a change o f land use and corresponding increases in population generation, housing, or employment growth exceeding 2015 AQMP forecasts. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and a less than significant impact would occur.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 43 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Operational and construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants were estimated for the proposed Project using CalEEMod.

Operational Emissions
Operational activities such as vehicle trips, use of natural gas and electricity, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment can generate long-term mobile, energy, and area-type emissions.

Operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, assuming an operational date/assumed buildout of the site by end of year 2025. This assumption provides a conservative estimate for operational emissions as it is likely that parcels within the Project site would be developed independently and at varying time intervals. As shown in Table 4-2, estimated total operational-related emissions are below all MBARD significance thresholds. Because emissions are below these thresholds, the Project can be presumed to have a less than significant impact.

Construction Emissions
Construction activities such as excavation, grading, and on -site vehicles generate emissions that represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project.

According to MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines, construction activities which directly generate 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. If modeling demonstrates that direct emissions under individual or cumulative conditions would not cause the exceedance of the PM 10 significance thresholds at existing receptors as averaged over 24 hours, the impact would not be considered significant.

Construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, assuming a two (2)-year buildout of all parcels within the Project site simultaneously. This assumption provides a conservative estimate for construction em issions as it is likely that parcels within the Project site would be developed independently and at varying time intervals. As shown in Table 4-3, estimated total construction-related emissions for PM10 are below the 82 pounds per day significance threshold. Because emissions are below this threshold, the Project can be presumed to have a less than significant impact. However, to further ensure that emissions of future development of the Project site are below the significance threshold, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ -1 and Mitigation Measure AQ -2.

Through incorporation, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Lastly, future development resulting from Pro ject implementation would be reviewed and conditioned by the MBARD for compliance with applicable rules and regulations including but not limited to Rule 20 0 (Permits Required), Rule 400 (Visible Emissions), Rule 403 (Particulate Matter), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt), and Rule 4 26 (Architectural Coatings). Thus, compliance with MBARD’s rules would further reduce emissions during operations and/or construction activity.

Overall, the anticipated development of the Project site would not have potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants that exceed the MBARD adopted thresholds. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ -2 and compliance with MBARD’s rules would further reduce emissions. Consequently, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 44 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Air Quality. During construction, the applicant or successor in interest for each individual site shall:
• Limit grading to 8.1 acres per day, and limit grading and excavation to 2.2 acres per day. • Provide watering trucks on site to maintain adequate soil moisture during grading and water graded/excavated areas at least twice daily, thus minimizing dust generation. In addition, the water trucks shall be used to wash down trucks and tractors, including earth loads, prior to entering public roadways.
• Prohibit all grading activities whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). • Maintain a minimum of two feet for freeboard for all haul trucks. • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. • Cover inactive storage piles.
• Enforce a 15 -mph speed limit for all unpaved surfaces when visible dust clouds are formed by vehicle movement.
• Place gravel base near site entrances to clean tires prior to entering public roadways.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: MBARD Health Risk Consultation. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permit for each individual site, the applicant or successor in interest shall consult with MBARD regarding the potential need for a diesel health risk assessment (HRA). If required, the applicant or successor in interest shall prepare a diesel HRA and shall implement the measures contained therein to ensure that project-specific emissions are below MBARD’s established health risk thresholds: hazard index greater than 1 for acute or chronic impacts, and cancer risk greater than 10 in one million for long -term operational emissions or 1 per 100,000 population for temporary construction-related emissions. Measures may include, but would not be limited to:
• Use of diesel-fueled equipment equipped with Tier 4 (or Tier 3 if the Tier 4 standard is unavailable) USEPA engine standards. The USEPA estimates that Tier 4 engines would reduce PM emissions by approximately 90 percent compared to the USEPA Tier 2 standards (USEPA 2008). • Retrofit off -road diesel equipment with Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) like Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF). Particulate Matter level 3 VDECS can provide at least an 85 percent reduction (CARB 2015).
• Use alternatively fueled (e.g., natural gas) diesel construction equipment, including all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment.
• Use electrically driven equipment that is not powered by a portable generator set. • Limit the hours of operation for heavy -duty equipment and/or limit the q uantity of heavy-duty equipment operating at the same time.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or e nvironmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor s include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family residences located 15 feet south and east of the site. As stated under criterion a) above, emissions during construction or operation would not reach the significance thresholds and would not be anticipated to result in concentrations that reach or surpass ambient air quality re quirements. Further, anticipated development that

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 45 would result from Project implementation would not be uses that would generate toxic emissions (i.e., Type A uses identified by the CAPCOA guidelines). Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive rece ptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and a less than significant impact would occur. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities may emit temporary odors from exhaust and fumes associated with vehicles and equipment. Such odors would be short -term and cease upon completion. In addition, discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause a nuisa nce or detriment to a considerable number of persons or the public would be prohibited through compliance with MBARD Rule 402. Therefore, construction activities would not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people and a l ess than significant impact would occur.

Specific uses and operations that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants an d rendering plants. The Project would not consist of such land uses; rather, implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate mixed use development, including residential and commercial uses that are unlikely to produce odors that would be considered to adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Air Quality related mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION

5. CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 46

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan.

X

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 47

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the Salinas city limits and is planned and zoned for retail uses. The Project site is currently fully developed and paved, containing existing structures and on - and off-site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses. Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north- south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. SR 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as urban landscapi ng with heavy alteration and disturbance given the existing retail uses. There are existing trees and shrubs throughout the site and along rights-of-ways. No water features are present.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Special-Status Species Database The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) operates an “Information for Planning and Consultation” (IPaC) database, which is a project planning tool for the environmental review process that provides general information on the location of special-status species that ar e “known” or “expected” to occur ( note: the database does not provide occurrences; refer to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database below). 9

Specifically, the IPaC database identifies 13 endangered species in Salinas including: California condor, Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow -billed Cuckoo, California Red -legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Monarch Butterfly, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Contra Costa Goldfields, Marsh Sandwort, Monterey Gilia, Monterey Spineflower, and Yandon’s Piperia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Critical Habitat Report
Once a species is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to determine whether there are areas that meet the definition of Critical Habitat. Per NOAA Fisheries, Critical Habitat is defined as:
• Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and
• Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. 10
The process of Critical Habitat designation is complex and involves the consideration of scientific data, public and peer review, economic, national security, and other relevant impacts.

According to the Crit ical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Report updated September 28, 2022, the City of Salinas, inclusive of the Project site and its immediate vicinity (0.5-mile radius from the site) are not located

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information and Planning Consultation Online System. Accessed on October 12 , 202 2, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
10 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA). Critical Habitat. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#key-regulations

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 48 within a federally designated Critical Habitat .11 No critical habitats are identified in the city limits. The closest federally designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 4.8 miles southwest of the Project site designated for the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens).

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – National Wetlands Inventory The USFWS provides a National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) with detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of U.S. wetlands. A search of the NWI shows no federally protec ted wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity (0.5-mile radius) of the Project site.12 The NWI does not identify any water features within the Project site. The closest water feature identified is a 0.5-acre PUBHx freshwater pond, approximately 0.04 miles north of the Project site. PUBHx indicates Palustrine System (P) with an unconsolidated bottom (UB ) that is permanently flooded (H ) and has been excavated by humans (x) (i.e., ponding basin). Additionally, the Project site is not within or adjacent to a riparian area nor does the site contain water features.

Environmental Protection Agency – WATERS GeoViewer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WATERS GeoViewer provides a GeoPlatform based web mapping application of water features by location. According to the WATERS GeoViewer, there are no streams, canals, or waterbodies on the Project site (see Figure 4-3). A catchment, as a local drainage area for a specific stream segment, is located southeast of the Project site, and a stream is located west of the site. 13

11 U.S. Fish & Wildlife. (2021). ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System - USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report (updated September 28, 2022). Accessed October 12, 2022, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html 12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed October 12, 2022, https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WATERS GeoViewer. Accessed October 12, 2022, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=074cfede236341b6a1e03779c2bd0692

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 49 Figure 4-3 Water Features in Project Vicinity

Streams
Catchments
D Project Site
Apploboe·•
la Plaza
Bakery
CllY OF SALINAS -Gene ra l Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopp ing Center Created 4/4/2023

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 50 California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) operates the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California in addition to the reported occurrences of such species.14 According to the CDFW CNDDB, there are 38 special-status species with a total of 75 occurrences that have been observed and reported to the CDFW in or near the Salinas Quad as designated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (the Salinas Quad includes most of the City of Salinas, inclusive of the Project site). Of the 38 species, there are seven (7) federally or state -listed species: tricolored blackbird, California tiger salamander, Monterey spineflower, seaside bird-beak, Monterey gilia, Contra Costa goldfields, and California red- legged frog.7F
15 Appendix B lists the CNDDB-identified animal and plant species within the Salinas Quad, including their habitat and occurrences.

The CNDDB also provides CNDDB-known occurrences within a set geographic radius. Figure 4-4 shows the CNDDB- identified occurrences of animal and plant species within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site. Table 4-4 lists all federally or state-listed special-status species CNDDB-known occurrences within the five (5) -mile radius of the Project site, organized by distance to the site. As shown, the nearest occurrences are California tiger salamander approximately 3.0 miles north east of the site, dated 2007, and tricolored blackbird approximately 3.2 miles northwest, dated 1932. Other species that are not federally or state -listed that are near the Project site include western spadefoot, western bumble bee, alkali milk-vetch, and burrowing owl. The CNNDB ranks occurrences by the condition of habitat and ability of the species to persist over time. As shown, the occurrences within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site are ranked as unknown and fair. Table 4-5 provides an analysis of essential habitats and the potential for the existence of the special-status species to exist on the Project site.

14 California Departme nt of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed March 15, 2023 , https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
15 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. B iogeographic Information and Observation System. Accessed April 4 , 2023 , https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?tool=cnddbQuick

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 51

Figure 4-4 CNDDB Species Occurrences
IZJ Plant {non -spec ific)
0 Plant{circular)
■ Animal {80m )
183 Animal { spec ific)
fZ) An imal {non -spec ific)
0 Animal { circular)
0 Multipl e {circular)
.A Project Site
5-mile rad ius fro m
the Proje ct Site
Note: Data Accuracy
Accuracy repr esents spat ial
unce rtainty in a relative way
on a sca le of one to ten (from
most accurate to least
accurate).

Specific• Specific bounded
a rea. (Level 1)
Non-specific· Non-spec ific
bounded a rea. (Level 3)
80 m - Specific bounded
area w ith an 80-meter
radius. (Level 1)
P RECISIO N , .. co~r •-.o +,--
Source: California Natural
Diversity Database
!I .. , .....
!
f ·,
t ·..-,-......
\
Burrowi
CllY OF SALINAS -Gene ral Plan Amend ment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopp ing Center / I
"""lwrr"
• .. ~· cawcrn1a t
. ~ sa~mander •
! , ,
.' .
l
Created 4/4/202 3

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 52 Table 4-4 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site Species Date Rank Distance to site
California red-legged frog 5/12/2004 Fair* 4.2 miles northeast California tiger salamander 9/5/2007 Fair 3.0 miles northeast Tricolored Blackbird 5/4/1932 Unknown 3.2 miles northwest California tiger salamander 11/8/2002 Unknown 4.5 miles northeast Only federally or state-listed threatened/endangered species are listed in the table.

Extirpated or possible extirpated occurrences are not shown in the table. * Fair (C) - Population small and/or potentially not very viable OR habitat in disturbed, fragmented or otherwise suboptimal condition. Disturbances are more severe and can include nearby development, heavy recreatio nal use, ORV use and damage, heavy weed infestation, and more.

Population not expected to persist in the long term but may persist for 10 years.

Table 4-5 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site Special-Status
Species General Habitat Micro Habitat Assessment
California red -
legged frog
Lowlands and foothills
in or near permanent
sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian
vegetation.

Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval
development. Must have
access for estivation
habitat.

The Project site is fully
developed. The site does not
contain any waterbodies. As
such, the site does not provide
suitable habitat.

Tricolored
Blackbird
Highly colonial species,
most numerous in
central valley and
vicinity. Largely
endemic to California.

Requires open water,
protected nesting
substrate, and foraging
area with insect prey within
a few km of the colony.

The Project site is fully
developed. The site does not
contain any open water. As
such, the site does not provide
suitable habitat.

California tiger
salamander
Lives in vacant or
mammal-occupied
burrows throughout
most of the year; in
grassland, savanna, or
open woodland
habitats.

Need underground refuges,
especially ground squ irrel
burrows, and vernal pools
or other seasonal water
sources for breeding.

The Project site is fully
developed and mostly paved .

The site does not contain
grassland, burrows, woodland,
or waterbodies. As such, the site
does not provide suitable
habitat.

California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protect native birds and raptors.

Mitigation for avoidance of impacts to nesting birds is typically necessary to comply with these Sections of the Fish and Game Code in CEQA. 16
Section 3503: It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

16 The California Biologist's Handbook . California Fish and Game Code . Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://biologistshandbook.com/regulations/state-regulations/state-fish-and-game- code/#:~:text=Section%203503,any%20regulation%20made%20pursuant%20thereto.%E2%80%9D

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 53 Section 3503.5: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds- of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 3513: It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.

General Plan
The Ecological and Bio logical Resources Element of the Salinas General Plan provides policies to protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within the City. The General Plan iden tifies resources including Salinas River, Carr Lake, Carr Lake tributaries and sloughs, and the reclamation ditch that provide riparian habitat for a variety of species. Figure 4-5 from the General Plan identifie s vegetative communities in the city’s planning area. The Project site is not located in an area with an identified vegetative community. A policy included in the General Plan that may be applicable to the Project site is:

Policy COS-20 Oak Tree Retention. Require project developers to retain coast live oak and valley oak trees within the planning area, including oaks within new development areas. All coast live oak and valley oak trees should be surveyed prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, the construction should be postponed until the end of the fledgling.

City of Salinas Municipal Code
The City of Salinas Municipal Code Chapter 35 - Trees and Shrubs, establishes standards for the planting of trees, plants, or shrubs. Applicable regulations include:

Section 35-14 – Trees, etc., to be protected during construction . During the erection, repair or alteration of any building, house or structure in the city, no person in charge of s uch work shall leave any tree, shrub or plant in any street, parkway or alley in the city in the vicinity of such building or structure without such good and sufficient guards or protectors as shall prevent injury to such tree, shrub or plant arising out of or by reason of the erection, repair or alteration.

Section 35 -18 – Heritage and/or landmark trees . No heritage or landmark Oak tree shall be removed from city property except with the prior written approval by the director.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 54

Figure 4-5 Vegetation Communities in the City of Salinas ·-·- City llound., y ~ R;parbn Wooclbnd ~ Oak Woodland
---- Futun, CTOW1h AtN
-
In-Channel CJ Grwla nd Wedioda and Pond.

Project Lor.atiou
D /\griolltutt
~
••••• R;par1,n Woodland

1...0..nncl
Figure COS-4 Wctl.nda •nd Pond,
0 1,SOO il)OO n. Vegetation Communities
City of Salinas Septomber 2002
G.,,.,rc,I Pion COS-30

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 55

4.4.2 Impact Assessment
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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is fully developed and paved, containing existing structures and on - and off -site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses.

The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as urban landscaping with heavy alteration and disturbance given the existing retail uses. There are existing trees and shrubs throughout th e site and along the rights-of-ways. No water features are present.

As shown in Table 4-4, there are no recorded occurrences of special-status species or critical habitats on the Project site. In addition, as described in Table 4-5, the site conditions provide low suitability for habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species that may occur on the Project site or vicinity. However, the existing trees an d shrubs throughout the site and along the rights -of-ways could provide habitat for birds and raptors that are protected under CFGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Future development of the site could result in the removal of this vegetation and thereby impact protected nesting birds through direct habitat modifications.

Therefore, to reduce impacts to protected nesting birds that may occur during site construction and development, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO -1. Through incorporation of the mitigation measure, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated and the Project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:
• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season. • Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1 -September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct precons truction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required. • Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non -listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non -listed raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the durat ion of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 56 of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance. 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 the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. According to the General Plan and CDFW and USFWS databases, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project.

In addition, the site does not contain any water features that would provide habitat for riparian species. Further, the site consists of scant vegetation. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project site does not provide any riparian or sensitive natural community habitat and thus, no impact would occur because of the Project. 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? No Impact. Based on the search of the NWI, the Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. As a result, it can be determined that the Project site would not result in any impact on state or federally protected wetlands and no impact would occur because of the Project. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are linear habitats that function to connect two (2) or more areas of significant wildlife habitat. These corridors may function on a local level as links between small habitat patches (e.g., streams in urban settings) or may provide critical connections between regionally significant habitats (e.g., deer movement corridors).

Wildlife corridors typically include vegetation and topography that fa cilitate the movements of wild animals from one area of suitable habitat to another, in order to fulfill foraging, breeding, and territorial needs. These corridors often provide cover and protection from predators that may be lacking in surrounding habitat s. Wildlife corridors generally include riparian zones and similar linear expanses of contiguous habitat.

As previously mentioned, the Project site does not contain habitat that could support wildlife species in nesting, foraging, or escaping from predators. This is based on the existing conditions of the site including the site’s heavy alteration and lack of cover, vegetation, or water features. Due to these conditions, it can be determined that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement and a less than significant impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. SMC Chapter 35 - Trees and Shrubs establishes standards and regulations related to the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees and shrubs in the City of Salinas . Planting, maintenance, and removal of existing trees on the Project site would be subject to compliance with these standards and regulations.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 57 There are no other local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources applicable to the Project. Through compliance, the Project would have a less than significant impact. 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? No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community C onservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site. As such there would be no impact.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Biological Resources related mitigation measure BIO-1 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION

5. CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 58

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?

X

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

X

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, cultural resources are considered “historical resources” that meet criteria in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. If a Lead Agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource, then the project is determined to have a significant impact on the environment. No further environmental review is required if a cultural resource is not found to be a historical resource.

California Historical Resource Information System Record Search The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) was requested to conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding “Project Area” (0.5-mile radius from perimeter of Project site). Results of the CHRIS Record Search were provided on April 14 , 2022 (Record Search File Number 21-1463). Full results are provided in Appendix C.

The CHRIS Record Searches generally review file information based on results of Class III pedestrian reconnaissance surveys of project sites conducted by qualified individuals or consultant firms which are required to be submitted, along with official state forms properly completed for each identified resource, to the Regional Archaeological Information Center. Guidelines for the format and content of all types of archaeological reports have been developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and reports will be reviewed by the regional information centers to determine whether they meet those requirements.

The results of the SJJIC CHRIS Record Search indicate:
(1) There were no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. (2) There are no recorded archaeological resources or historical buildings and structures within the project area.
(3) The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 59 State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no previously recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed project area.

Further, the NWIC provided the following comments and recommendations:
(1) Prior to any future development and ground disturbance activities, a qualified, prof essional consultant should conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. (2) Contact the NAHC for a list of Native American tribes that can assist with information regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values.
(3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years of age or older), prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that the unrecorded building or structure be documented on Office of His toric Preservation’s DPR 523 resource recordation forms by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of Monterey County. (4) Mitigate for archaeological resources that could potentially be encountered during construction.

California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within Monterey County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 8, 2022. The listed tribes include Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Indian Canyon Mutsun B and of Costanoan, Ohlone/Costanoan - Esselen Nation, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Xolon-Salinan Tribe, and Runsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone.

The NAHC also conducted a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check which received positive results. Correspondence is provided in Appendix D.

AB 52 and SB 18 Tribal Consultation
The City of Salinas conducted formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on June 14, 2022, utilizing the consultation list of tribes received from the NAHC. The same nine (9) tribes listed above were included in the formal consultation. Consultation for AB 52 ended on July 14, 2022, and consultation for SB 18 ended on September 12, 2022. Chairperson Louise Miranda -Ramirez of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation requested formal consultation on September 13, 2022. Formal consultation was held by telephone on June 21, 2023. Nine (9) mitigation measures were requested through formal consultation, as incorporated in Section 4.5 and Section 4.18. No response was received from the other tribes.

General Plan
The Salinas General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element identifies the following policies related to historic and cultural resources.

Policy COS-13 California Environmental Quality Act. Continue to assess development proposals for potential impacts to sensitive historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
a. For structures that po tentially have historic significance, require that a study be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historian to determine the actual significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The City may

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 60 require modification of the project and/or mitigation measures to avoid any impact to a historic structure, when feasible.
b. For all development proposals within the Carr Lake/Natividad Creek corridor, require a study to be conducted by a professional archaeologist. The objective of the study is to determine if significant archaeological resources are potentially present and if the project will significantly impact the resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid the impacts, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve archaeological investigation and resources recovery.

Policy COS-14 Historic/Architectural Preservation. Consider im plementing a historic/architectural preservation program and a historic/architectural preservation ordinance that encourages public/private partnerships to preserve and enhance historically significant buildings in the community.

The General Plan also identifies the Carr Lake/Natividad Creek corridor and the northwest portion of the city’s planning area on either side of Highway 101 as areas having high potential of containing archeological si tes.

Monterey County requires archeological field inspections prior to all proposed development in high sensitivity zones. The Project site is not within a high sensitivity zone (see Figure 4-6).

City of Salinas Historic Resources Board
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) was created on April 27, 2010, by the City Council’s adoption of Ordinance # 2505. The HRB was tasked by the Council to protect Salinas’ architectural heritage assets for education, community revitalization and the promotion of heritage tourism. 17 SMC Chapter 3 Article 2 – Historic Resources Board codifies the operations of the HRB. For instance, Section 3-02.05 – Designation process allows the board to recommend the promotion, preservation, restoration, and protection of historic resources to the City Council . Other sections regulate designation amendment, powers of City Council, maintenance and repair, enforcement, and incentives for historic preservation.

17 City of Salinas. Historic Resources Board. Accessed on October 24, 2022, https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our- government/boards-commissions/historic-resources-board

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 61 Figure 4-6 County of Monterey Archeological Sensitivity Map -
Source: City of Saln a;, County of Monterey Open Data

0.5 2 3
- - Miles
-
CITY OF SALINAS· LAUREL WEST SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

INITIAL STUDY
I
\
\
9 .. -. ...,,··, .. ' ' -..... ··, .. ,
Created 4/4/202 3

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 62

4.5.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on April 14, 2022, there are no known local, state, or federal designated historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 on the Project site. While there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Pr oject site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden, and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. While the Project does not pr opose development, future redevelopment may include typical construction activities such as demolition of existing buildings, grading, trenching, excavation, etc. In order to ensure that the existing structures are not of historical significance at the tim e of demolition, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL -1 to mitigate the destruction or alternation of any potential historical structures. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Historical Resources Identification and Treatment Plan Prior to permit approval for development on the Project site, a historical resources evaluation shall be completed for that individual site to confirm if existing buildings and/or structures withing these sites qualify as historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5(a) of CEQA Guideline s. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive- level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed project area. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

Any relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be implemented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Prope rties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]). Application of th e Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence, in addition to the historical resources evaluation.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with th e Standards and or avoidance is not feasible, the applicant or developer shall provide a report explaining why compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible for the City’s review and approval. Site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken, including, but not limited to, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Buildings Survey -Like report. The report shall be commissioned by the project applicant or

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 63 their consultant to comply with t he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the Historic American Buildings Survey Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative repor t, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on April 14, 2022, there are no known archeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 on the Project site. While there is no evidence that archeological resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden, and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction acti vities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL -2 through CUL -8 as described below to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential archeological resources discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits for each individual site, a Phase I cultural resources study shall be performed by a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Pro fessional Qualification Standards (PQS) for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). The Phase I cultural resources study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site when appropriate and sufficient background research and field sampling to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. Archival research shall include a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) no more than two years old and a Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The Phase I technical report document ing the study shall include recommendations that shall be implemented prior to and/or during construction to avoid or reduce impacts to archaeological resources.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, archaeological construction monitori ng, sensitivity training, or additional testing and mitigation (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL -3 through CUL -7). The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits.

The City shall include recommendations in the Phase I technical report as Conditions of Approval to be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3 Extended Phase I Testing
If recommended by the Phase I study for each individual site (Mitigation Measure CUL-2), the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the presence/absence and extent of archaeological resou rces on the project site. XPI testing shall include a series of shovel test pits and/or hand augured units and/or mechanical trenching to establish the boundaries of archaeological site(s) on the project site. If the boundaries of the archaeological site are already well understood from previous archaeological work, an XPI will not be required. All archaeological excavation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist(s) under the direction of a principal investigator meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeolog y (National Park Service 1983). If an XPI

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 64 report is prepared, it shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit. Recommendations therein shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activ ities.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, site avoidance, Phase II Site Evaluation, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL-4, CUL- 5, CUL-7, and CUL-8). The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined after implementing Mitigation Measures CUL -2 and/or CUL -3) or archaeological resources encountered during ground -disturbing activities shall be avoided by project -related construction activities, where feasible. A barrier (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be placed between the work location and any resources within 60 feet of a work location to min imize the potential for inadvertent impacts. If the resource cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI for each individual site (Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be avoided by the project (Mitigation Measure CUL -4) and that have not been adequately evaluated for the NRHP or CRHR listing at the project site, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase II investigation to determine if intact deposits remain and if they may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique archaeological resources. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s).

A Phase I evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations and mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit. The sample excavation would be carried out to characterize the nature of the site(s), define the artifact and feature contents, determine hori zontal and vertical boundaries, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains.

If the archaeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor or other interested tribal representative determine it is appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal r emains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the site(s) shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR and if applicable, NRHP. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” Recommendations in the Phase II report shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Phase III Data Recovery, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mit igation Measures CUL-6 through CUL- 8). The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 65 Mitigation Measure CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation for each individual site (Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction in accordance with CUL-4, the project applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City prior to construction. Any necessary Phase III data recovery excavation, conducte d to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology (National Park Service 1983). Data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with a research design reviewed and approved by the City, prepared in advance of fieldwork, and using the appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s).

As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries (outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL-7 and CUL-8). The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC upon completion.

Mitigation Measure CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or Phase III studies for each individual site (Mitigation Measures CUL -2, CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6), the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project-related, ground-disturbing activities which may include the following but not limited to: grubbing, vegetation removal, trenching, grading, and/or excavations. The archaeological monitor shall coordinate with any Native American monitor as required. Monitoring logs must be completed by the archaeologist daily. Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced for the project if the qualified archaeologist finds it appropriate to reduce the monitoring efforts.

Upon completion of ground disturbance for the project, a final report must be submitted to the City for review and approval documenting the monitoring efforts, cultural resources find, and resource disposition. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Mitigation Measure CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet shall be halted and the project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall immediately to evaluate the find pursuant to Public Resources Code 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, to mitigate any significant impacts to significant resources. If the resource is of Native American origin, implementation of Mitigation Measures 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.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 66 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non -visible buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. If any human remains are discovered during construction, then the Project would be subje ct to CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Regulations contained in these sections address and protect human burial remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to human remai ns, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries are less than significant.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-8 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 67

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. They apply to new construction of, and additions and alterations to, res idential and nonresidential buildings and relate to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting.12F
18 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, was developed in 2007 to meet the state goals for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions pursuant to AB32. CALGreen covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource effici ency, and indoor environmental quality. 13F 19 The 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees air pollution control efforts, regulations, and programs that contribute to reduction of energy consumption. Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs ensure that development will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources. Lastly, the Energy Action Plan (EAP) for California was approved in 2003 by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The EAP established goals and next steps to integrate and coordinate energy efficiency demand and response programs and actions.14F 20 General Plan
The Salinas General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element identities the following goal and policies for energy conservation to sustain existing and future economic and population growth.

18 California Energy Commission . 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy- efficiency
19 California Department of General Services. (2020). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Accessed on Sept April 4, 2023, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CGBC2019P3
20 State of California. (2008). Energy Action Plan 2008 Update. Accessed on April 4, 202 3, https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/28715.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 68 Goal COS-8: Encourage energy conservation.

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.

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

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.

4.6.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, future development that results from Project implementation would consume energy resources. Energy would be consumed through future construction and operations. Construction activities typically include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, architectural coating, and trenching. The primary sources of energy for construction activities are diesel and gasoline, from the transportation of building materials and equipment and construction worker trips. Operations would involve heating, cooling, equipment, and vehicle trips. Energy consumption related to operations would be associated with natural gas, electricity, and fuel.

All construction equipment and operational activities shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies, including applicable CARB regulations (Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requirements (e.g., Lighting Power Density requirements). Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the short -term, temporary construction activities and long -term operational activities do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Energy outputs for short-term construction and long-term operations were estimated using CalEEMod ( Appendix A) and Project assumptions . Traffic impacts related to vehicle trips were considered through a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis contained in Section 4.17. Results are summarized as follows.

The Project site would be served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for both ele ctricity and natural gas.

Monterey County consumed approximately 2,531 GWh of electricity, or 0.90 percent of electricity generated in California in 2021 (280,738 GWh) and approximately 11,492,753 MMBtu, or 0.96 percent of natural gas generated in California in 2021 (1,191,985,957 MMBtu). 21

21 California Energy Commission. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed on April 4, 2023 , http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 69 Table 4-6 shows the estimated electricity and natural gas consumption for the Project based on output from CalEEMod. The Project would consume less than one (1) percent of the total electricity use in Monterey County in 2021 and less than one (1) percent of the total natural gas use in Monterey County in 2021. These results do not rise to a level of significance.

Table 4-6 Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Electricity (GWh per year) Natural Gas (MMBtu per year) Project 4.5047 6,204.56
Monterey County 2,434.2729 10,998,356.15
Project Percentage (%) 0.1851 0.06
Regarding energy consumed through vehicle trips , development of the Project site to the maximum permitted density/intensity (i.e., 691 dwelling units and 176,418-square foot commercial space) would generate approximately 2,377 daily trips (See Section 4.17). The anticipated trips do not rise to a level of significance under VMT thresholds as described under Section 4.17 because the site is eligible to “screen out” from further VMT analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) using Map-based Screening for residential development and Redevelopment Projects for commercial development . In addition, the Project site would facilitate the redevelopment of a site within an urbanized area that is surrounded by existing urban uses, which has the potential to further reduce travel miles due to the proximity to existing uses. Mixed use development and development near existing bus stops also encourages the use of transit and alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking.

Overall, energy consumption for the Project does not rise to a level of significance. In addition, through compliance with applicable CARB regulations (Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards, it can be determined that the proposed Project would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary . For these reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under criterion a), the construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable energy efficiency regulations. Thus, applicable state and local regulations and programs would be implemented to reduce energy waste from construction and operations. Table 4-7 demonstrates that the Project does not conflict with or obstruct with the energy conservation/efficiency policies identified in the General Plan.

Table 4-7 Consistency with General Plan Energy Conservation Policies General Plan Energy Conservation Policies Consistency/Applicability Determination Policy COS -8.1: Enforce State Title 24
building construction requirements.

Consistent. Future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to Title 24 requirements and conditioned for compliance during the entitlement review and approval process.

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 Title 24 and CalGreen standards, which include energy conservation measures. Compliance would be ensured through the entitlement review and approval process.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 70 Policy COS -8.5: Encourage land use
arrangements and densities that facilitate
the use of energy efficient public transit.

Consistent. The Project would introduce higher density, mixed use development, including commercial and residential uses, in an area that is in close proximity to transit.

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 introduce higher density, mixed use development, including commercial and residential uses, in an area that is in close proximity to transit.

Therefore, through compliance, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for energy efficiency and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 71

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or Indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i. 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? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction? X
iv. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
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 waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 72

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Salinas is located at the northern opening of the Salinas Valley and is situated 10 miles west of Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, approximately mid -way between Santa Cruz and the Monterey Peninsula.

Geographically, the city inclusive of the Project site is in a seismically active region that is subject to various natural hazards such as earthquakes, liquefaction, flooding, landslides, and erosion. A brief discussion of the likelihood of such activities occurring in or affecting the city is provided below. The discussion is based on the 2022 County of Monterey Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) adopted in September 2022 as well as the Salinas General Plan Safety Element. 22
Faulting
There are no known active faults in the city. 23 No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning has been established for the city. There are two (2) potentially active faults within the city. These potentially active faults include King City Fault and Gabilan Creek Fault, both of which have not been active within the past 11,000 years. The nearest active fault and Alquist-Priolo Fault zoning to the city is the San Andreas Fault, which is located 1 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site. 24 Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture in the city.

Ground Shaking
The City of Salinas is in Seismic Risk Zone IV, the highest potential risk category due to the frequency and magnitude of earthquake activity nationwide. Therefore, the entire population is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. As shown in Figure 4-7, the Project site is in a zone with low seismic risk. Earthquake- related damage is often the result of liquefaction.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction primarily occurs in areas of recently deposited sands and silts and in areas of high groundwater levels.

Susceptible areas include sloughs and marshes that have been filled in and developed over. The city has former wetland areas that have been drained, f illed, and developed. As shown in Figure 4-8, the Project site is in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction.

Erosion
The primary types of erosion identified by the HMP are coastal cliff and shoreline erosion. The city is not susceptible to these erosion types in all sea level rise scenarios (i.e., sea level rise at 25 cm, 75 cm, 200 cm).

22 County of Monterey. 2022 Monterey County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan . Accessed on April 4, 202 3, https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/109180/637800072369600000 23 According to the California Department of Conservation, “An active fault, for the purposes of the Alquist -Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years.”
24 California Department of Conservation. “CGS Seismic Hazard Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones.” Accessed on April 4, 2023, https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=37.213952%2C - 117.946341%2C7.19

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 73

Figure 4-7 City of Salinas, General Plan, Seismic Hazard Zones 0 Cty Bouncl.,y
f-ururc Crow1h Arn
Oound.ry
Project Location

2.500
Clty of Solinas
General Pion
D
BJ
filIBJ
S.000 ll.

Low
Moclcn to
Mockntdy High
s.22
~
-
Hlgh
Ve,y 1-llgh
Figure S- 1
Seismic Hazard Zones
Sopto,nbo,-2002

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 74

Figure 4-8 Monterey County HMP, Liquefaction Susceptibility in the City of Salinas A ... t
urce 1foTanvc L1quctacnon "S"uscepnb1
Monterey County Planning Deparunent
__ .! Proposed Sphere of Influence
Lique faction Susceptibili ty
Low
Moderate

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 75 Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. According to the HMP, the City of Salinas is not exposed to earthquake induced landslide risk.

Subsurface Soils
A search of the Web Soil Survey by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the following soils comprise the Project site (Figure 4-9): 25
AeA: Antioch very fine sandy loam , 0 to 2 percent slopes, moderately well drained, and high runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches. The AeA soils account for 49.3% of the project site.

AeC: Antioch very fine sandy loam , 2 to 9 percent slopes , moderately well drained, and high runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches. The AeC soils account for 48.7% of the project site.

Xc: Xerorthents, loamy, 15 to 50 percent slopes, well drained, and medium runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches. The Xc soils account for 2.0% of the project site.

California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the International B uilding Code with necessary California amendments. About one -third of the text within the California Building Standards Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. Construction within the City of Salinas is governed by the seismic safety standards of Chapter 16 of the Code. These standards are applicable to all new buildings and are required to provide the necessary safety from earthquake related effected emanating from fault activity.

General Plan
The General Plan includes objectives and policies relevant to natural hazards in the Safety Element since Salinas is subject to earthquakes, liquefaction, flooding, landslides, and erosion:

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-4.2: Locate development outside flood-prone areas unless flood risk is mitigated without decreasing retention capacity.

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

25 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed on April 27, 2022, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 76

Figure 4-9 Web Soil Survey Soil Map for Project Site

CITY OF SALINAS -Gene ral Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center Created 4/4/ 202 3

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 77

4.7.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in Salinas inclusive of the Project site, nor is Salinas within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. There are two (2) potentially active faults within the city, both of which have not been active within the past 11,000 years.

The nearest active fault to the city is the San Andreas Fault, which is located 1 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture in the city. The likelihood of the Project rupturing due to an earthquake would be reduced through compliance with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic -related hazards such as landslide s, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in a zone with low seismic risk. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential damage to structures and thereby reduce potential impacts including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

Compliance with the California Building Code would ensure a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction with no known geologic hazards or unstable soil con ditions. Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture. Further, th e site is primarily made up of sandy loam soils that are well drained , which are less susceptible to liquefaction than silt or sands. Future development of the site would require compliance with the city’s grading and drainage standards that would reduce the likelihood of settlement or bearing loss. In addition, future development would be required to c omply with CBC and specific requirements that address liquefaction.

For these reasons, the Project does not have any aspect that could result in seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils, and the site is not in the immediate vicinity of rivers or creeks that would be more susceptible to landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity. The Project site is relatively flat and mostly paved, which limits the potential for

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 78 substantial soil erosion. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short- term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance during construction is largely caused by the use of water.

Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with applicable standards. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with SMC Section 29 -15(d) - Best Management Practices for Construction Sites , which requires all construction to “comply with the City of Salinas Standards to Control Excavations, Cuts, Fills, Clearing, Grading, Erosion and Sediments” and to keep debris and dirt out of the city’s storm drain system.

The likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Namely, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. With these provisions in place, impacts to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. 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? Less than Significant Impact. Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface so il deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. Subsidence typically occurs in areas with groundwater withdrawal or oil or natural gas extraction. The topography of the site is relatively flat with stable, native soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic-related hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with native soils of sandy loam, which is not expansive.

As such, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. 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? No Impact. The Project site is within city limits and is currently connected to city utility services. Future development would also connect to City wastewater services. Thus, no permanent septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed, and no impact would occur.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 79 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact . As discussed in the Cultural Resources section above, there are no known paleontological resources or unique geological features known to the City on this site. In addition, the Project site is heavily disturbed as it has been previously developed. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non -visible, buried resource, site. or feature may exist and may be uncovered during ground distu rbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. To further assure future development does not result in significant impacts to any potential resources, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measures CUL-2 as described in Section

4.5. Therefore, if any paleontological resources or geologic features were discovered, implementation of CUL-2 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 80

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
In assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may consider the following:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmen tal setting;
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, guidance from the MBUAPCD, Monterey County Municipal Climate Action Plan, and Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy are discussed below and are utilized as thresholds of significance. 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
The CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan is the adopted statewide plan for reduction and mitigation of GHGs to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. AB 1279 was issued on August 12, 2022 to require California to achieve “net zero greenhouse gas emissions” as soon as possible and to further reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions thereafter.

It sets a statewide goal to reduce emissions 85% below 1990 levels no later than 2045.

Consequently, the Scoping Plan involves several measures for cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions, including continuing existing programs such as Renewable Portfolio Standard, Advanced Cle an Car s, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, etc., and achieving new mandates to decarbonize several sectors . Along with reducing emissions , environmental justice policies are included to address the ongoing air quality disparities.

Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan include recommendations to build momentum for local government actions to align with State goals, including through CEQA review. The Appendix outlines the priority GHG reduction

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 81 strategies for local governments , including transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization. 26
2008 MBUAPCD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
MBUAPCD adopted CEQA thresholds of significance for air quality, including criteria pollutants. However, the guidelines do not specify a threshold for GHG emissions. 2013 Monterey County Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP) 27 The MCAP does not identify threshold of significance on GHG emissions for CEQA purposes. It only identifies actions calling for local governments to complete community -wide CAPs, incorporating MCAP, and adopt for purposes of CEQA tiering.
2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) 28 The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Monterey Bay Area. As required by SB 375, all MPOs should develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to establish actions to reduce GHG emissions. The SCS identifies implementation strategies, including encouraging infill development, supporting projects along high-quality transit corridors, construction of complete streets, conducting studies to identify opportunities, etc.

General Plan
The City of Salinas General Plan does not include any context or policies on GHG reduction; however, it does include policies that encourage high density development and energy conservation (See Section 4.6). The City of Salinas is currently in the process of drafting a Climate Action Plan.

4.8.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The 2023 CEQA Guidelines do not establish a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG impacts, leaving lead agencies the discretion to establish such thresholds for their respective jurisdictions.

Since the MBARD does not have established GHG significance emissions thresholds and the City of Salinas does not have an adopted CAP for CEQA tiering purposes, the following analysis utilizes emissions thresholds from other air districts.

26 California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D . Accessed on April 4 , 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf 27 Monterey County. (2013). Monterey County Municipal Climate Acti on Plan. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=48122 28 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. (2022). 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Pl an & the Sustainable Communities Strategy . Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.ambag.org/plans/2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan- sustainable-communities-
strategy#:~:text=AMBAG%20is%20developing%20the%202045,transportation%20plan%20every%20four%20years .

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 82 Although no specific project is currently proposed, short-term construction and long -term operational GHG emissions for project buildout were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0). (See Appendix A for output files and Section 4.3 for CalEEMod Assumptions). Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO 2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

Construction Emissions
The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have concluded that construction emissions should be assessed for impacts since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. The SMAQMD and BAAQMD both established quantitative significance thresholds of 1,100 MT CO2e per year for the construction phases of land use projects. As such, annual construction emissions below the 1,100 MT CO2e would have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHGs. The maximum annual construction emission of GHG associated with development of the project is estimated to be 954.3728 MT CO2e based on the CalEEMod run. This is less than the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold of the SMAQMD and BAAQMD.

Operational Emissions
Regarding the long-term operational related GHG emissions, the estimated operational emissions for buildout of the Project incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation . The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance thresho ld of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for GHG for construction and operational emissions. The BAAQMD also adopted the 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold. Utilizing this as the threshold , annual operational emissions below 10,000 MTCO2e would have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHGs. The annual operational GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Project is 8,574.9994 MT CO2e based on the CalEEMod run. This is less than the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold of the SCAQMD and BAAQMD.

Further, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for construction or operation al emissions as discussed in Section 4.3 . Cumulatively, these emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed Project. As such, it can be determined that the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The compatibility of the Project with the 2022 Scoping Plan and MCAP, and MTP/SCS is evaluated below.

Consistency with the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
Based on the evaluation shown in Table 4-8, the Project is consistent with the reduction measures identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The reduction measures are derived from the 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Section 3.2.1 – Project Attributes for Reside ntial and Mixed-Use Projects to Qualitatively Determine Consistency with the Scoping Plan. As stated in the section, “Residential and mixed-use projects that have all of the key project attributes in [Table 4-] should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.”

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 83 Table 4-8 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Consistency Analysis Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Consistency/Applicability Determination

Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure
that, at minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards
Code at the time of project approval.

Consistent with Mitigation . New development
projects are currently subject to residential
and/or non-residential mandatory measures as
specified in Chapter 4 and 5 of the 2022 CalGreen
Code. However, the mandatory standards for EV
charging infrastructure are less than the voluntary
standards as described in Appendix A4 of the
2022 CalGreen Code. Thus , the Project
incorporates Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to
ensure that future development resulting from
the Project w ould be subject to EV charging
infrastructure per the CalGreen Residential
Voluntary Standards Code . As such, the Project
would be consistent with mitigation incorporated.

VMT Reduction

Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses
and reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently served by existing
utilities and essential public services
(e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)

Consistent. The Project is on an infill site that is
currently developed with commercial uses . In
addition, it is currently served by existing utilities, street improvements, sidewalks, and five (5) bus
stops within 1,000 feet of the site.

Does not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and working
lands.

Consistent. Natural and working lands include
forests, rangelands, urban green spaces,
wetlands, and farms. The Project is currently
developed with urbanized uses and does not
include forests, rangelands, green spaces,
wetlands, or farms. As such, redevelopment of
the Project site will not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and working lands.
• Consists of transit -supportive
densities (minimum of 20
residential
• dwelling units per acre), or
• Is in proximity to existing transit
stops (within a half mile), or
• Satisfies more detailed and
stringent criteria specified in the
region’s SCS.

Consistent. While no development is proposed at
this time, the Project aims to increase residential
density. According to Project assumptions as
described in Section 2.9, the Project could be built
to a maximum of 42.7 dwelling units per acre. In
addition, there are five (5) bus stops within 1,000
feet of the Project site , providing proximity to
existing transit.

Reduces parking requirements by:
• Eliminating parking
requirements or including
maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking
Consistent with Mitigation . The City of Salinas
does not currently have a maximum allowable
parking ratio. As such, Mitigation Measure GHG-2
is incorporated to ensure that the future
developments as a result of Project
implementation have a maximum allowable

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 84 spaces to residential units or
square feet); or
• Providing residential parking
supply at a ratio of less than one
parking space per dwelling unit;
or
• For multifamily residential
development, requiring parking
costs to be unbundled from costs
to rent or own a residential unit.

parking ratio or that parking costs be unbundled
from costs to rent/own a residential unit.

At least 20 percent of units included
are affordable to lower -income
residents. 29
Consistent. The City of Salinas has an inclusionary
zoning ordinance that requires that residential
projects include some level of affordable housing.

Specifically, SMC Chapter 17 Article III –
Inclusionary Housing requires inclusionary units
be built as part of residential development for
both for -sale and rental units. The ordinance
requires a choice of 20%, 15%, and 12% of
affordability for a mix of income, including
workforce income, moderate income, lower
income, and very low income households.

Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.

Consistent. The Project site is currently developed
with retail uses. There are no existing residential
units on site. As such, future redevelopment of
the Project site would not result in loss of existing
affordable units.

Building
Decarbonization
Uses all -electric appliances without
any natural gas connections and
does not use propane or other fossil
fuels for space heating, water
heating, or indoor cooking.

Consistent. Future development on the site will
comply with applicable building codes at the time
of development. Current state building code
requires new res idential development to be all
electric.

According to the analysis in Table 4-, mitigation measures are incorporated to ensure that future development that occurs as a result of the Project would comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan. With mitigation measures incorporated, future development resulting from the implementation of the Project incorporates all the key project attri butes that are aligned with the State’s priority GHG reduction strategies for local climate action. Per the 2022 Scoping Plan, this is considered to be consistent with the Scoping Plan and therefore, would result in a less than significant GHG impact under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure GHG -1: Future development shall install EV charging infrastructure according to the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

29 Newmark, G. and Haas, P. (2015). Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy. Accessed March 2, 2023, https://chpc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CNT-Working-Paper-revised-2015-12-18.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 85 Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development shall provide no more parking spaces than the off-street parking requirements established in the City of Salinas Municipal Code. Alternatively, multi-family residential development can choose to unbundle parking costs with costs to rent or own a residential unit instead of meeting the maximum off-parking requirement.

Policies and actions established in the MCAP and RTP/SCS do not directly apply to development projects. For instance, the MCAP calls for local governments to complete community-wide CAPs. The City of Salinas is currently developing a Climate Action Plan. T he RTP/SCS identifies strategies related to land use patterns, transportation planning, research, and education that promote the reduction of GHG emissions in local jurisdictions. The Project complies with SCS implementation strategies, including encouragi ng infill housing and promoting increased development in a high-quality transit corridor.

In conclusion, the Project contains features that would reduce GHG emissions in compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, goals from the MCAP, and implementation strategies from the RTP/SCS. As such, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy , or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions related mitigati on measure GHG-1 and GHG-2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 86

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials 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?
X
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 for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to "injurious substances," which include flammable liquids and gases, poisons, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, radioactive materials, and medical supplies and waste. These materials are either generated or used by various commercial and industrial activities. Hazardous

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 87 wastes are injurious substances that have been or will be disposed. Potential hazards arise from the transport of hazardous materials, including leakage and accidents involving transporting vehicles. There also are hazards associated with the use and storage of these materials and wastes. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories based on their properties:
• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that: “…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and haza rdous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels mus t be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households.

Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities usi ng large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. The release of hazardous materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations and is similar to the transport, use, and disposal of hazard materials.

Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was established in 1991 to protect the environment .

CalEPA oversees the Unified Program through Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), which consolidates six (6) environmental programs to ensure the handling of hazardous waste and materials in California. The local CUPA in Monterey County, Hazardous Materials Management Services (HMMS) , is responsible for administering the following six (6) CUPA programs: 30
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan Requirements
• Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements
• California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) • Aboveground Storage Petroleum Storage

30 County of Monterey. CUPA Programs. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/health/environmental-health/hazardous-materials- management/cupa-programs

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 88 • Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances
• Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Materials Management Plan The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is another agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, conducts inspections, provide emergency response for hazardous materials -related emergencies, protect water resources from contamination, removing wastes, etc. DTSC acts under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC implements California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Division 4.5 to manage hazardous waste. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that DTSC shall compile and update at least annually a list of:
(1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).
(2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program.

This list of hazardous waste sites in California, referred to as the Cortese List , is then distributed to each city and county. According to the CCR Title 22 , soils excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is considered hazardous waste, and remediation actions should be performed accordingly. Cleanup requirements are determined case-by-case by the jurisdiction.

Record Search
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) 31, California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database 28F 32 , and the State Water Resources Control Board’s
GeoTracker database 29F
33 include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on April 4, 2023. The searches revealed one (1) completed - case closed hazardous material release sites on the Project site (see Figure 4-10). The hazardous site that is a LUST cleanup site at 1042 Davis Road North, Salinas, CA 93901.

31 United States Environmental Protection Agency . Superfund National Priorities List. Accessed April 4, 2023, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c41f1 32 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed April 4, 2023 , https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
33 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Accessed April 4, 2023, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 89

Figure 4-10 Hazardous Sites

LUST Cleanup Site .
am s,te Cleanup Prag ~ d site
~ Signifies as C ose
D P ·ect Site .
roJ t & Rezone. NAS - General Plan Amend men CllY OF SALi

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 90

4.9.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from Project implementation would result in mixed -use development that would include residential and commercial uses. Uses common to mixed -use development typically do not include production or services that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, operations that are likely to routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials would not otherwise be permitted in the proposed MX zone district (i.e. , in dustrial uses, warehousing and storage, and vehicle sales, services, repair, storage, and washing). While demolition and construc tion activities may include the temporary transport, storage, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, etc.), such activities would be regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control through the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations as well as by MBARD through Rule 424 (i.e., asbestos -containing materials). Compliance would ensure that construction -related impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and a less than significant impact would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to t he public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion a), the Project is not anticipated to cr eate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Therefore, the Project would not 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.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste withi n one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. There is one (1) school, Boronda Meadows Elementary School, within one-quarter mile of the Project site. However, a s described under criteria a) and b), the Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not create upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials 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? Less than Significant Impact. According to NPL, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker, t he Project site includes one (1) hazardous materials site that is considered a completed “case closed” hazardous material release site. Since there are no active hazardous material release sites on the Project site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the envi ronment and there would be a less than significant impact.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 91 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the Salinas Municipal Airport located approximately

3.6 miles southeast of the Project site. The airport occupies 763 acres with two (2) runways, measuring 4,825 feet long and 150 feet wide and 6,004 feet long and 150 feet wide. The air traffic control tower is in operation 12 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The applicable airport land use plan is the 1982 Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan (Plan) adopted by the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission on May 17, 1982 .31F 34 According to the
Plan, the Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) or Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the Salinas Municipal Airport. Since the Project site not located within the AIA and RPZ, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area and no impact would occur. f) Impair implementation of or physical ly interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently fully developed and paved, containing existing structures and on- and off-site improvements including drive approaches, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, utilities, and landscaping. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses. Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north-south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. Therefore, future development of the Project site would constitute redevelopment that would be served by the existing roads and infrastructure. Construction may require lane closures, but access would be maintained through standard traffic control as required by an encroachment permit. Furthermore, future development of the Project site would be reviewed and conditioned to compliance with applicable standards for on -site emergency access including turn radii and fire access. For these reasons, it can be determi ned that Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a s ignificant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded by urban uses. In addition, the site is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Future development of the site would result in the construction of structures and installation of infrastructure that would be reviewed and conditioned by the City for compliance with all applicable standards, specifications, and codes. In addition, a ny structure to be occupied by humans would be required to be constructed in adherence to the Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Standards of the CBC Chapter 7A. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the P roject meets standards to help prevent loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

34 Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission. (1982). Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan. Accessed on April 4, 2023,
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/airport_files/salinas_clup_reduced_si ze_adopted_05-17-1982_0.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 92

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 93

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
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 a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii. Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site:

X
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
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood
flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 94

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within city limits and currently connected to the city’s water and stormwater services. The city’s water and stormwater services are described as follows.

Water
Water is provided by two (2) private water companies: Alco Water Service and California Water Service Company (Cal Water). The City of Salinas is served by the Salinas District (District), which also includes communities of Las Lomas, Oak Hills, Salinas Hills, and Country Meadows. Water supply comes from local ground water. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the District has 38 wells, 23 storage tanks, and over 300 miles of pipeline, delivering approximately 14 million gallons of local groundwater daily. 35 The Project site is served by the Salinas Public Water System (PWS), see Figure 4-11.

The city’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the UWMP. According to the UWMP, the District has sufficient production capacity and groundwater supply to meet most demands in the projected future during dry year and multiple dry year conditions . Minor shortfalls (2%) are anticipated in 2040 under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions in the Salinas PWS and will increase slightly in 2045. However, the UWMP expects that shortfalls would be alleviated through implementation of the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) and other supply augmentation measures. According to the UWMP, water quality is not expected to impact water supplies through 2045.

A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was not prepared for the proposed project because no development is currently proposed for the project site. Future development, at max residential buildout, could result in development that could trigger the requirements for a WSA. The thresholds are provided below.

Under California Water Code, the following types of developments require a WSA:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

35 California Water Service. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed on October 26, 2022, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SLN_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 95 Stormwater
The City of Salinas Urban Watershed Management Program is an integrated effort of the public and public agencies with the goal to protect water resources by reducing or eliminating contaminants from entering local creeks. The City of Salinas Permit Center, Community and Economic Development, and Public Works Departments prepared the Stormwater Standard Plans (SWSP) based on Low Impact Development Initiative (LIDI) Standard Details and City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual Typical Details. In conjunction with the City of Salinas Stormw ater Development Standards (SWDS) and the City of Salinas Standard Specifications, Design Standards, and Standard Plans, all development projects are required to comply with these provisions to filter stormwater on site and assess needs for liners, subdrains, storm drain connections, etc. 36

36 City of Salinas. Stormwater Program. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public- works/stormwater-program

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 96

Figure 4-11 Salinas District Location and PWS Boundaries

Pajaro
~ L,as Lomas PWS
Elkhorn
..

IC
Salinas ,BWS
Salinas
Hills PWS
0 4
(Scale in Miles
IZJ Service Area Boundary
8 CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 97

4.10.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future residential and commercial development. If a future development on the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the developer would be required to prepare a SWPPP ( Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for future development of the Project site to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, runoff resulting from future development would be managed in compliance with approved grading and drainage plans in addition to the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3 -2019-0073, NPDES Permit No.

CA0049981). Thus, compliance with regulations including the Genera l Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans , and MS4 Permit would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substanti ally with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project includes a G GPA and Rezone pertaining to six (6) parcels that total approximately 16.2 acres. The GPA requests a land use change from Retail to Mixed-Use and the rezone requests a zone change from CR – Commercial Retail to MX-Mixed Use. Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, the SMC would allow a maximum of 176,418 sf. of commercial development and 691 multi-family residential units. Future development would be served by Cal Water.

Potable water demands for the existing and proposed land use designation were estimated using water use factors from the WSA Water Factor Tool developed by Cal Water. These factors are based on the expected parameters and characteristics of the existing an d proposed development. Calculated water demands are shown in Table 4-9. As shown, existing land uses utilize approximately 15.9-acre feet per year (AFY) compared to an estimated 122.0 AFY under the proposed use at maximum build out. Maximum build out would account for a less than one percent increase above Cal Water’s 2020 water demand of 16,497 AFY. In addition, the increase in demand would not exceed available groundwater supplies during a normal year water supply estimate of 23,569 AFY per the UWMP.

Therefore, future development of the Project site could be accommodated by existing groundwater supplies and impacts would be less than significant.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 98 Table 4-9 Existing versus Future Potable Water Demand
Land Use Unit of Measurement gpd/unit gpd AFY
Potable Water Demand of Existing Land Use
Commercial 218,972 sf. 0.065 14,233 15.9
total 14,233 15.9
Potable Water Demand of Proposed Land Use
Commercial 176,418 sf. 0.065 11,467 12.8
Multi-Family Residential 691 du 141 97,431 109.1
total 108,898 122.0
Furthermore, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the city’s water conservation efforts (e.g., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact water supply or impede water management. In particular, future development would be built accordance with all mandatory outdoor water use requirements as outlined in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Section 4.304 – Outdoor Water Use and verified through the building permit process. As a mixed-use development tha t would contain landscaping pursuant to SMC regulations, future development shall comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Division 2), as implemented and enforced through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, development of the Project site would not substantially increase impervious surfaces because the site has been previously developed and paved. Redevelopment of the site would require review and approval for compliance with the city’s Standard Specifications, Design Standards, and Standard Plans to filter stormwater on site and assess needs for liners, subdrains, and storm drain connections. Therefore, through compliance, the potential for the Project to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

Finally, although the proposed Project, would increase demand for water use on this specific site compared to the water use currently on the site, as previously d iscussed in Section 2.9 of this document , the overall projected citywide population would not change because of this Project. In fact , the increase in potential residential units does not constitute a significantly greater water demand because higher density, multi -family residential development generates less water use due to property features including less outdoor irrigation due to shared common areas (and as evidenced in Cal Water demand factors) . Thus, if assumed population increases are redirected to higher density multi -family development rather than single -family development, the overall anticipated water demand w ould be less than anticipated citywide. In addition, the UWMP determined there is enough water capacity to serve the city’s projected population. As discussed further in Section 4.14.2, the population and housing units generated by the proposed Project would be within the AMBAG projections for the region and city.

Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP, the Pro ject would not generate significantly greater water demand as to substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Additionally, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to water conservation efforts as well as compliance with applicable California Green Building Standards Code and MWELO would reduce water demand and reduce the potential for the Project to substantially decrease water supply. Lastly, compliance with the city’s stormwater requirements as I I
I I
I I
I I

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 99 ensured through the building permi t process would reduce the potential for the Project to interfere with groundwater recharge. Although the current project, which does not propose new development would result in a less than significant impacts, a future development project on the site coul d trigger the threshold for a WSA. In order to address this and ensure the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such a mitigation measure has been added as follows:

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Future Development projects on the subject site that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project are required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project Area can be accelerated by ground -disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.

Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity.

The Project site is relatively flat and mostly paved due to previous development, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short- term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance during construction is largely caused by the use of water.

Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with applicable standards. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with SMC Section 29 -15(d) - Best Management Practices for Construction Sites , which requires all construction to “comply with the City of Salinas Standards to Control Excavations, Cuts, Fills, Clearing, Grading, Erosion and Sediments” and to keep debris and dirt out of the city’s storm drain system. The likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criterion a). With these provisions in place, the impact on soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Salinas. Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c) -i. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 100 surface runoff so as not result in flooding on - or off-site, then the size and capacity of such facilities would be determined through the site design, review, and conditioning of future development. The refore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in flooding on- or off-site. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Salinas. Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c) -ii. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not result in exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not exceed capacity or contribute to additional sources of polluted runoff. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Because the site i s developed and paved, there are existing stormwater drainage systems including curb and gutter along the existing roadways adjacent to the Project site. Given the existing stormwater drainage systems surrounding the site, future development of the site is not expected to substantially change the topography of the site and therefore would not be expected to impede or redirect flood flows. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Salinas. Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c) -ii. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not to impede or redirect f lood flows. Therefore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not impede or redirect flood flows. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06053C0208G dated April 2, 2009 (see Figure 4-12). Zone X is a flood hazard area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard and one (1) precent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less t han one (1) square mile. In addition, the Project site is not within the City of Salinas Flood Zone Overlay. Furthermore, the Project site is not in a tsunami or seiche zone (i.e., standing waves on rivers, reservoirs, ponds, and lakes), therefore the risk of inundation is unlikely. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 101

Figure 4-12 Flood Zone Map
National Flood Hazard Layer Fl RMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
2,000
Basemap: USGS National Map: Ortholmagery: Data refreshed OCtober, 2020 Legend
SEE FlS REPORT FOR OfTAILEO L£GENO ANO INOfX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD I

HAZARD AREAS

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD
,.

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A. V.A99
With BFE or Depth Zone A€. AO, AH, \€ AA
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annua l Chance Flood Hazard , Areas
of 1% annua l chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1'6 Annua l
Chance Flood Hazard ZoneX
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
~ Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezooe D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard ZoneX
l=:::::J Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone o

GENERAL

STRUCTURES I I I I I I I
Channel, Culvert. o r Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwa ll
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
--1L!. Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
- su- Base Aood Elevation Line (BFE)
= Limit of Study
--- Jurisdiction Boundary
--- --- Coastal Transect Basel ine
OTHER - -- Profile Baseline
FEATURES ___ Hydrograph ic Feature
Digita l Data Available N

MAP PANELS
No Digita l Data Available
Unmapped
+
l=:::::J Project Site
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accurac y standa rds
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was Hported on 4/ 4/ 2023 at 5:36 PM and does not
reflect change s or amendmen ts subsequent to thi s date and time. The NFHL and effective Information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the follow ing map elements do not appear: basemap image ry, flood zone label s, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community Identif iers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effectiv e date. Map images for unmappe d and unmoderniz ed area s can not be used for
regulato ry purposes.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 102 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality con trol plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Salinas is a member agency of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA). The Project site is within the 180/400 -Foot Aquifer Subbasin and the East Side Aquifer Subbasin. The SVBGSA adopted the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin in September 2022 and the GSP for the East Side Aquifer Subbasin in January 2022. 37,38 Generally, the GSPs outline how groundwater sustainability will be achieved in 20 years and then maintained for an additional 30 years. According to the GSPs, groundwater is the primary water source for all water use sectors in the subbasins.

There are existing monitoring pro grams for groundwater elevation, groundwater extraction, and groundwater quality carried out by the M onterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) and municipal and community water purveyors in order to fulfill groundwater quality regulatory requirements. As described above, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources. In addition, as mentioned above, although the proposed Project would increase demand for water use on this specific site compared to the water use currently on the site, the overall city-wide projected population would not change because of this project. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Hydrology and Water Quality related mitigation measure HYD-1 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

37 Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (2022). Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400 -Foot Aquifer Subbasin 2022 Update. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://svbgsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/180400-2022-GSP- 09292022.pdf.
38 Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2022). Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin East Side Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Accessed on April 4, 2023, https://svbgsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Eastside-Whole- GSP-Report-Only-20220414.pdf.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 103

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
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?
X

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently fully developed and is within Salinas city limits.

4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a project introduced new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses or created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community. Typical examples of physical barriers include the introduction of new, intersecting roadways, roadway closures, and construction of new major utility infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, storm channels, etc.).

Surrounding Land Uses
This Project is funded by SB 2 grant funding for the purpose of providing additional opportunities for housing and mixed-use development, in line with the goals contained in the General Plan and Housing Element. Currently, the site is occupied by big-box retail buildings, including Kmart, and smaller retail and commercial services, collectively identified as “Laurel West Shopping Center.” Recently, several big box retail establishments had either declared bankruptcy or were at risk of declaring bankruptcy. In consideration of these conditions, the City thought it an appropriate moment to re -imagine these properties as mixed -use villages with critical housing units.

Implementation of the Project would thereby facilitate future development in line with the env isioned transformation of the Project site.

Circulation System
No new streets are proposed that would result in a physical barrier. Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north-south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. Five (5) to six (6)-foot sidewalks are on both sides of the roadways. There are two (2) controlled crosswalks at West Laurel Drive/North Davis Road and North Davis Road/Post Drive. State Route (SR) 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. There is one (1) bus stop adjacent to the site (“ Davis/Post” Stop ID: 3250) on North Davis Road and Post Drive for Route 44 – Salinas-Westridge operated by the Monterey - Salinas Transit (MST) with service every 1 hour.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 104 While no development is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the Project site with commercial and residential uses. Future development would be accessible by the existing circulation system , including existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems, and would not require the development of new roadways or permanent roadway closures.

Utility Infrastructure
No new major utility infrastructure is proposed that would result in a physical barrier. Since the Project site is within the city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to the city’s water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services. N atural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Utility systems are described and analyzed in Section 4.10 and Section 4.15. Based on the analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new , major utility infrastructure.

Overall, the Project would not result in the physical separation of the established community. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. 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? Less than Significant Impact. Generally, policy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources, Cultural Reso urces, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to provide additional opportunities for mixed -use development. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site would result in residential and commercial uses.

A discussion of land use policies that are applicable to the Project are included in Table 4-10. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use. Specifically, the Project helps the city achieve Goal LU-1: Develop a balanced land use pattern that provides a wide range of jobs, housing, shopping, services, and recreation and Goal CD-3: Create a community that promotes a pedestrian friendly, livable environment.

Table 4-10 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Mixed Use Development General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU -1.1: 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 proposed land use and zone district change would diversify the types of land uses permitted on the Project site, including the provision of housing, jobs, and public facilities which would otherwise not be permitted under the current lan d use and zoning designation.

Implementation of the Project would thereby facilitate a greater balance of land uses.

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

Consistent. As described under Section 4.3 and Section

4.14, the City of Salinas and County of Monterey are
expected to experience population growth. In addition, the city’s RHNA indicates a need for an additional 2,229
housing units. The Project would introduce additional
opportunities for housing and mixed-use development that

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 105 would help the city meet the projected population growth and demand for housing units. Therefore, implementation of the Project would increase the city’s capacity to
accommodate growth projected for the next decade.

Policy LU -1.3: Make provision in residentia l areas
for institutional uses that are needed near homes
or which benefit from a residential environment,
including places of religious assembly, day -care
homes, homes for physically or developmentally
disabled persons, and care facilities in accordance
with the provisions of State law.

Consistent. The Project proposes a land use and zoning
change that would allow for future mixed-use development consisting of commercial and residential uses. Under the proposed planned land use designation and zone distric t, institutional uses including places of religious assembly, day-care homes, homes for physically or developmentally disabled persons, and care facilities would be permitted.

Therefore, Project implementation would allow for
institutional uses near homes.

Policy LU -1.4: Create and preserve distinct,
identifiable neighborhoods that have traditional
neighborhood development (TND) characteristics.

Specifically, development should: Provide a
balanced mix of housing, workplaces, shopping,
recreational opportunities, and institutional uses,
including mixed -use structures (combined
residential and nonresidential uses), that help to
reduce vehicular trips.

Consistent. The proposed land use and zone change would help the city achieve a mix of u ses, including housing, workplaces, shopping, recreational opportunities, and
institutional uses. Project implementation would facilitate the future development of mixed -use structures on a site with existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure.

Therefore, Project implementation would introduce
traditional neighborhood development characteristics that help to reduce vehicular trips.

Policy CD -3.4: Actively encourage mixed -use
development in order to provide a greater
spectrum of housing near businesses, alternative
modes of transportation and other activity areas.

Consistent. The Project proposes a land use and zoning
change that would allow for future mixed-use development in an area with existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure. Therefore, Project implementation would encourage mixed -use development including commercial
and residential uses near alternative modes of
transportation.

Further, through the entitlement process, future development would be reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Overall, the entitlement process would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, SMC, and any other applicable policies and regulations. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 106

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
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?
X

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of CEQA, mineral resources are land areas or deposits deemed significant by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). Mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and metallic and nonmetallic deposits, including aggregate resources. The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or infer red significant mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the Project site is in the MRZ-1 zone, indicating little likelihood for the presence of resources. 39 In addition, the City of Salinas, inclusive of the Project site, is not within a CalGEM-recognized oilfield and there are no oil and gas wells on-site.

4.12.2 Impact Assessment
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?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery.

Therefore, the Project would not 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. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. 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?
No Impact. As descri bed above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and th e residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated in

39 California Department of Conservation. (2009). Mineral Lands Classification . Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 107 the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mi neral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 108

4.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
X
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?
X

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
An Acoustical Analysis of the Project was conducted on February 28, 2023, by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA). The full report is provided in Appendix E. A summary of the Acoustical Analysis is provided below. Overall, the Acoustical Analysis concludes that future development of the Project site would decrease traffic volumes (and potentially decrease overall noise exposure levels) in the vicinity of the Project site. However, residential development could potentially be exposed to exterior and interior noise lev els that exceed the City of Salinas noise standards for residential land uses. Additionally, non-residential land uses associated with future development could result in compatibility concerns with both existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the Pro ject site. When site -specific uses are proposed, site-specific acoustical analyses may be required if there are potential noise impacts at existing and proposed noise-sensitive land uses. However, because the Project does not propose development, the Project itself would not specifically be expected to result in any significant noise impacts to existing noise -sensitive receptors.

General Plan
The Salinas General Plan Noise Element outline policies to address negative effects of noise by establishing programs and policies to reduce excessive noise and limit the community’s exposure to loud noise . These policies are related to land use planning (Goal N-1), transportation-related noise (Goal N-2), and non-transportation related noise (Goal N-3). In particular, policies in the General Plan that are applicable to the Project include:

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

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 109 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-2: Minimize transportation-related noise impacts Policy N-2.1: Ensure noise impacts generated by vehicular sources are minimized through the use of noise control measures (e.g., earthen berms, landscaped walls, lowered streets).

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 developments/residences and special events are minimized.

The General Plan also addresses noise standards and land use compatibility. To ensure that noise producers do not adversely affect sensitive receptors, the city uses land use compatibility standards when planning and making development decisions. Table N-2 of the General Plan (reproduced as Table 4-11 below) summarizes the city noise standards for various types of land uses. The standards represent the maximum acceptable noise level as measured at the property boundary, which is used to determine noise impacts.

Table 4-11 Exterior Noise Standards (General Plan Table N-2) Designation/District of Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level, Ldn or CNEL, dBA Agricultural 70
Residential 60
Commercial 65
Industrial 70
Public and Semipublic 70
Source: City of Salinas General Plan, Noise Element, Table N-2 Exterior Noise Standards These noise standards are the basis for development of the land use compatibility guidelines presented in Table N- 3 of the General Plan (i.e., the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix) (reproduced as Table 4-12 below). If the noise level of a project falls within Zone A or Zone B as identified in the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix , then the project is considered compatible with the noise enviro nment. Zone A implies that no mitigation will be needed.

Zone B implies that minor mitigation may be required to meet the city’s and Title 24 noise standards. All development project proponents are required to demonstrate that the noise standards will be met prior to human occupation of a building.

The General Plan identifies and projects noise contours and impact areas . Figure N -1 of the General Plan (reproduced as Figure 4-13 below) shows future noise contours and impact areas. The noise contours are used as a guide for land use and development decisions. Contours of 60 dBA or greater define noise impacted areas. When noise sensitive land uses are proposed within these contours, an acoustical analysis must be prepared. For a project to be approved, the analysis must demonstrate that the project is designed to attenuate the noise to meet the City noise standards identified in Table N-2 (Table 4-11 reproduced above). If a project is not designed to meet the noise standards, mitigation measures should be recommended in the analysis. If the analysis demonstrates that the noise

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 110 standards can be met with implementation of mitigation measures, the project can be approved with the mitigation measures, which shall be required as conditions of project approval. The proposed Project site is located in a noise contour and impact area greater than 60 dBA.

Lastly, the General Plan incorporates California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) which establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential space (CNEL or Ldn). For residential structures to be located within noise contours of 60 dBA or greater from freeways, major streets, thoroughfares, rail lines, rapid transit lines, or industrial noise sources, acoustical studies must be prepared. Studies must demonstrate that the building is designed to reduce interior noise to 45 dBA or lower.

Table 4-12 Noise/ Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL)
Zone A
Normally
Acceptable
Zone B
Conditionally
Acceptable
Zone C
Normally
Unacceptable
Zone D
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential < 60 60 - 70 70 - 75 > 75
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel < 60 60 - 75 75 - 80 > 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes < 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 > 80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters - < 70 - > 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports - < 75 - > 75
Playground, Parks < 70 - 70 - 75 > 75
Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries < 70 - 70 – 80 > 80
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and
Professional < 65 60 - 75 > 75 -
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture < 70 70 - 80 > 80 -
Source: City of Salinas General Plan, Modified by CBA from 1998 State of California General Plan Guidelines Zone A - 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.

ZONE B - 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.

Zone C- 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 .

ZONE D- Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 111

Figure 4-13 Future Noise Contour and Impact Areas
~ WKlmd AMod.attc ... 200 I
City Boundary
Growth Arca Boundary
Project Location
0 2,500
City of Solinos
Gen..,ol Pion
S,0001\.
\
\
\
\
I
I
I

I I I I
Future Communiiy Noise Equivalent level
(CNEL) Contours
N-14
Figure N-1
Future Noise Contours
and Impact Areas
September 2002

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 112 California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24)
Title 24 established an interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential space (CNEL or Ldn). The standards regulate that technical noise studies shall be prepared for residential units that are located within noise contours of or over 60 dBA from traffic or industrial noise sources. This is incorporated in the General Plan as illustrated above.

City of Salinas Municipal Code
SMC Section 37 -50.180 regulates ambient noise levels measured at the property boundary. The city’s noise standards for different types of land uses are listed in Table 4-13.

Table 4-13 Maximum Noise Standards
Zone of Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (CNEL, dBA) Agricultural District 70
Residential District 60 **
Commercial District 65
Industrial District 70
Mixed Use District 65 *
Parks or Open Space District 70
Public or Semipublic District 60
Source: City of Salinas Municipal Code Table 37-50.50
* The interior noise level in any residential dwelling unit located in a mixed use building or development shall not exceed a maximum of forty-five dBA from exterior ambient noise. ** In residential zones, the noise standard shall be 5.0 dBA lower between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Other sections of the code provide regulations on operational noise, s uch as Section 5-12.03 – Prohibited Noises provides examples of noise disturbance that are not allowed. These include operational sounds that could bring disturbance across a residential or commercial property line, such as residential devices, speakers, animals, loading and unloading, emergency signaling devices, and domestic power tools or machinery.

4.13.2 Impact Assessment
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 in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development that would have noise generating activities. It is not anticipated that future development would generate 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 in other applicable local, state, or federal standards, given the type of development that would be permitted in the Project area (i.e., commercial, residential).

Traffic Noise Exposure
The Project site is exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles on North Davis Road and surrounding local streets. The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RF-77-108) was utilized for modeling traffic noise exposure (Appendix E) based on the estimated trip generation (Appendix F) that would occur under maximum buildout of the Project site. Overall, the modeling indicates a reduction of theoretical noise exposure levels by 5 dB Leq that would occur under maximum buildout. This demonstrates that traffic volumes associated with the Project

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 113 would decrease as a result of Project implementation; however, implementation of the Project would likely not result in any significant overall reduction in existing traffic noise exposure levels in proximity to the site.

Existing ambient noise exposure measured in vicinity of the site indicates a 66.3 dB Ldn and 60.0 dB Ldn which is on and above the city’s 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. Typically, the exterior noise standard would apply at the outdoor activity areas (e.g., outdoor common areas, balconies, etc.) . Additionally, the city’s interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn.

A reduction of 5 dB Leq would not meet this standard. With regard to analyzing the exposure of sensitive uses to ambient noise levels in the vicinity in excess of established standards, CEQA case law had concluded that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents except in specific instances where such conditions could be exacerbated due to implementation of the project (California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015). As modeled, implementation of the proposed Project would not exacerbate traffic noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Stationary Noise Exposure
Mixed‐use land uses would typically include a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, retail and office uses. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with commercial and retail land uses. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing on‐site and off‐site sensitive receptors. From the perspective of the city’s noise standards, noise sources not associated with transportation sources are considered stationary noise sources. Typical examples of stat ionary noise sources include:
• Fans and blowers
• HVAC/Mechanical equipment
• Truck deliveries
• Loading Docks
• Compactors
• Amplified Drive‐Thru Menu Board Speakers
• Automated Car Wash Operations
Since no physical development is proposed, noise levels from new stati onary noise sources cannot be predicted with certainty at this time since specific uses have not yet been proposed and the locations of stationary noise sources relative to locations of noise sensitive uses are not known. However, under some circumstances, there is a potential for such uses to exceed the city’s noise standards for stationary noise sources at the location of sensitive receptors. Future mixed-use development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with General Plan Policy N-3.1, requiring that stationary sources are minimized.

In addition, the Project site is within a noise contour and impact area greater than 60 dBA as shown in Figure N -1 of the General Plan (reproduced as Figure 4-13 below). Therefore, future development would be required to prepare a site-specific acoustical analysis that demonstrates the development is designed to attenuate the noise to meet the city’s noise standards identified in Table N-2 (Table 4-11 reproduced above). Any mitigation would be required as conditions of project approval. Therefore, the Project would not be expected to result in any significant impacts related to stationary noise. Impacts would be less than significant.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 114 Construction Noise Exposure
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.0.

Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Of all construction phases, it is anticipated that grading would produce the loudest noise.

Consequently, for the purpose of this noise assessment, one of each construction equipment listed in the CalEEMod run (Appendix A) are included in the construction noise modeling. According to existing and anticipated land use within and around the Project site, the baseline and receptors that are analyzed in the RCNM are shown in Table 4-

14. Table 4-14 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM Location Land Use Daytime Baseline (dBA) Evening Baseline (dBA) Nighttime Baseline (dBA) **
15 feet to the south Residential 60 60 55
50 feet within site* Commercial 65 65 65
* Since the site would not be development concurrently, the analysis assumes that future development could happen approximately 50 feet from future developed residential units on site. ** Noise Baselines are based on Section 37-50.180 – Performance standards Short-term construction noises include traffic noise generated from transporting construction equipment and materials and construction worker commuting. These activities would raise noise levels near the site. According to CalEEMod, construction of the Project site would require 37 offroad equipment and generate a total of 733 worker trips and 103 vendor trips. According to modeling of the FHWA RCNM Version 1.0 , construction noise generated from the offroad equipment is estimated to be 99.7 dB Leq. Ambient noise from construction activities would cease upon completion of construction. However, to further ensure that potential impacts related to construction noise levels are mitigated to levels that are less than significant, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Compliance with the mitigation measure and applicable policies and regulations would ensure the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to ground disturb ing activities, the City of Salinas shall ensure the following with the Project proponent:
• Construction equipment, fixed of mobile, shall be outfitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers. • Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and using electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment shall be used. • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be located so that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive noise receivers.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development that would have noise generating activities. Ground borne vibration may result from operations and/or construction, depending on the use of equipment (e.g., pile drivers, bulldozers, jackhammers, etc.), distance to affected structures, and soil type. Depending on the method, equipment-generated vibrations could spread through the ground and affect nearby buildings. It is not anticipated

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 115 that the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of development that would be permitted in the Project area (i.e., residential, commercial, office). Potential vibration impacts from future construction would be short -term, temporary, and subject to compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and SMC Section 37-50.180 – Performance Standards. However, to further ensure t hat potential vibration impacts related to construction noise levels are mitigated to levels that are less than significant, the Project shall also incorporate Mitigation Measure NOI-2. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, with in 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Salinas Municipal Airport (SNS) located approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the Project site. SNS occupies 763 acres with two (2) runways, measuring 4,825 feet long and 150 feet wide and 6,004 feet long and 150 feet wide. The air traffic control tower is in operation 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The applicable airport land use plan for SNS is the 1982 Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan (Plan) adopted by the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission on May 17, 1982.31F 40 According
to the Plan, the Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) or Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the Salinas Municipal Airport. The Project is also not within the 55, 60, or 65 CNEL contour. Since the Project site not located within the AIA and RPZ, the Project would not result in exposing people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Noise related mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI- 2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

40 Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission. (1982). Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan. Accessed on April 4, 2023,
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/airport_files/salinas_clup_reduced_si ze_adopted_05-17-1982_0.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 116

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide the example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the char acteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units. A key consideration in evaluating growth inducement is whether the activity in question constitutes “planned growth.” Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Monterey Bay Area, inclusive of the City of Salinas . In 2022, AMBAG adopted the long-term transportation planning document, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) that provides population and employment forecasts for the region between 2015 and 2045. 41 The AMBAG region is projected to grow by 107,500 people, build over 42,200 housing units, and add 65,500 jobs between 201 5 and 2045, for a total population of 869,800 , 304,900 total housing units, and 442,800 total jobs by 2045. The City of Salinas is projected to grow by 19,069 people, build over 10,149 housing units, and add 12,674 jobs between 2015 and 2045 for a total population of 177,128, 53,150 total housing uni ts, and 85,683 total jobs between 2015 and 2045.

41 AMBAG. (2022). 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Appendix A). Accessed April 4, 2023, https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/PDFAAppendix%20A_2022%20RGF.pdf.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 117 U.S. Census Bureau
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the current population of the City of Salinas is 163,542 with a total of 44,405 housing units and an average household size of 4.15; there are approximately 68,879 jobs.42 Housing Element
The City of Salinas 2015 -2023 Housing Element identifies the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Salinas as determined by AMBAG. The RHNA for 2014 -2023 is 2,229 units with an estimated 43,001 total units as of 2015. 43 The additional units would increase the total units to 45,230.

4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) 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)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. GPA No. 2022 -002 requests a land use change from Retail to Mixed -Use. Rezone No. 2022 -002 requests a rezone from CR – Commercial Retail to MX – Mixed Use, consistent with the proposed land use designation.

Although no physical development is proposed, the Project would facilitate future mixed-use development containing commercial and residential uses. The proposed Project would allow future buildout of up to 691 multi- family residential units and up to 176,418 sf. of commercial space. Based on an average household size of 4.15, the 691 units could generate approximately 2,868 new residents thereby increasing the city’s population from 163,542 to 166,410. The 691 units would also increase the total number of housing units from 44,405 to 45,096. The 176,418 sf. of commercial space could generate approximately 513 employees, increasing the number of employees citywide from 68,879 to 69,392.44
Overall, the population, housing units, and employees generated by the proposed Project would be within the AMBAG proje ctions for the region and city. The new units would also assist the city with meeting its RHNA.

Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There are five (5) existing structures on the site that predominately consist of retail uses. The site does not contain any existing housing or residential uses. Since the site does not currently provide housing, future

42 U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Community Profile: Salinas, City, California. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://data.census.gov/profile/Salinas_city,_California?g=1600000US0664224. 43 City of Salinas. (2015). 2015 -2023 Housing Element. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/Departments_Files/Community_Development_Files/General_Plan_Files/Ad opted_Salinas_HE_2015-2023_1.pdf
44 Southern California Association of Governments. (2001). Employment Density Study Summary Report. Accessed on April 4, 2023, https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 118 development of the Project site would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing. No impact would occur because of the Project.

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 119

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to ma intain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within Salinas city limits and thus, future development would be subject to fees for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services and facilities . The City of Salinas implements a Public Facilities Impact Fee program per SMC Article V-D whereby any new development occurring within city limits is required to contribute its proportionate share of the costs of new public facilities intended to serve said development. Public services and facilities are further described below.

Fire Protection Services
Fire Protection Services in the city are provided by the Salinas Fire Department (SFD). The SFD operates a total of six (6) fire stations that serve the city, with Fire Station #2 closest to the Project site at 10 W Laurel Dr, Salinas, CA 93907. Fire Station #2 is located approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The total authorized staffing for SFD is 99 personnel , and the minimum daily staffing is 26 . The response t ime goal for fire protection and emergency services is to “provide a 6-minute response from receipt of 911 call for arrival of first company 90% of the time.” The General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies to ensure reductions in the potential for fire hazards and fire demand:

Policy LU-4.1: Provide an effective and responsive level of fire protection, public education and emergency response service (including facilities, personnel, and equipment) through the Salinas Fire Department.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 120 Policy LU-4.2: Improve the enforcement of regulations, such as zoning codes and building codes, to ensure existing and new development is constructed, occupied, and maintained to minimize potential fire and other hazards.

Policy LU-12: Review the level of services and f unding levels at budget time, adjusting when necessary to ensure that adequate levels of service are provided and facilities are maintained.

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

Policy S-5.2: Ensure that street widths and clearance areas are sufficient to accommodate fire protection equipment and emergency vehicles.

Policy S -5.3: Monitor water fire -flow capability throughout the city and work with water providers to improve water pressure availability considered inadequate for fire protection.

Further, projects are subject to review by the SFD and to regulations and standards such as the California Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance and building use. The UFC addresses fire department access, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarm system, etc., for new buildings.

Police Protection Services
Police Protection Services in the city are provided by the Salinas Police Department (SPD). The SPD is located at 222 Lincoln Avenue, which is approximately 0.6 miles east of the Project site. According to the SPD 2021 Annual Report, there are 143 sworn of ficers employed , which provides a ratio of approximately 0.87 officers per thousand residents, a decrease from the ratio of 1.1 assessed in the General Plan. 45 The SPD received a total of 72,565 calls in 2021, and 90% of those instances officers arrives on-scene in four (4) minutes or less. The General Plan identifies policies to provide effective and responsive police protection , including alternative policing methods, youth programs, and crime awareness.

Schools
Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Salinas City Elementary School District (SCESD) and Salinas Union High School Distric t. Schools within a one (1) -mile radius of the Protect site include Sherwood Elementary, Lincoln Elementary School, Roosevelt Elementary School, Salinas High School, Mount Toro High School, and Salinas Pre-School. In the 2021-2022 school year, the Salinas City Elementary School District had an enrollment of 8,287 students and the Salinas Union High School District had an enrollment of 16,525 students. 46 Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq. (State statutes) which govern the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” Pursuant to SMC Article V-A – School Facilities Fee, a School Facilities Fee would be

45 Police Services of Salinas. (2021). 2021 Annual Report. Accessed on November 1, 2022, https://salinaspd.org/2021-annual- report/
46 California Department of Education (2022). Data Quest. Accessed on November 17, 2022, https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 121 assessed for future development based on the rates in place at the time payment is due. In addition, the Salinas General Plan Land Use Element includes the following policy for educational facilities:

Policy LU -19: Continue to work with the school districts to the extent allowed by State law to ensure adequate school and recreational facilities are provided and maintained in the community. The City will cooperate in expediting construction of schools. School distric ts will consult with the City at the earliest possible time.

Parks and Recreation
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the City of Salinas Recreation and Community Services Department.

Currently, there are approximately 593.5 acres of parkland, which provides a parkland to population ratio of 3.64 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. 47 This meets the city’s standard of three (3) acres per 1,000 residents. In addition, the City of Salinas General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element includes the fo llowing goals and policies related to park and recreational facilities and services:

Goal COS-7: Provide, develop, and maintain ample park and recreational facilities that offer a variety of recreational activities.

Policy COS-7 .1: Develop a high-quality public park system that provides adequate space and facilities for a variety of recreational opportunities conveniently accessible to all Salinas residents.

Policy COS-7.2: Maximize the use of built and natural features to develop a citywide network of parks and open spaces with Carr Lake, Gabilan Creek and the Sherwood Park/Rodeo Grounds complex as essential elements of the open space network.

Policy COS-7.3: Plan park and recreation facilities in cooperation with concerned public and private agencies and organizations, particularly school districts and neighborhood residents.

Policy COS-7.5: Identify the recreation needs of special user groups, such as the di sabled and elderly, and address these in park and recreation facility development.

Policy COS -7.7: Encourage development of private commercial recreational facilities (e.g., golf courses, sports centers, bowling alleys, family fun centers, etc.) to expand community recreational opportunities and to fill unmet needs.

Policy COS-7.8: While supporting the development of private recreational facilities, ensure that the supply and maintenance of public parks and recreational opportunities is adequate to ensure p ermanent availability of parks and recreational facilities for use by the entire community.

Policy COS-7.9: Require new residential development to provide land and/or fees to achieve a minimum of

3.0 acres per additional 1,000 population for developed publ ic parklands for community or neighborhood parks.

47 City of Salinas, Public Works Department, GIS Division. (Modified October 17, 2022). Parks and Recreation. Accessed on November 1, 2022, https://cityofsalinas.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/parks-and- recreation/information/?location=13,36.69581,-121.63405

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 122 Policy COS-7 .11: Develop and maintain an integrated system of open-space corridors and trails along utility easements, power -transmission-line rights -of-way, the reclamation ditch, stream banks, drainagewa ys, slopes, and other natural features.

Policy COS-7.12: Link activity centers, recreational opportunities, transit nodes and other services to the integrated trails network.

4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adve rse 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:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within city limits and is currently served by the SFD. Therefore, future development of the Project site would be served by the SFD. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could increase the demand for fire protection services. However, the increase would be incremental and would be within the anticipated growth projections for the city (See Section 4.14). The Project’s proximity to the existing station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. In addition, future development would be reviewed by the SFD for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access. Further, future development would be subject to proportionate payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to fire protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would n ot result in the need for new or altered facilities that could have an environmental impact and a less than significant impact would occur.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the city limits and therefore is curren tly served by the SPD.

Therefore, future development of the Project site would be served by the SPD. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could increase the demand for police services. However, the increase would be incremental and would be within the anticipated growth projections for the city (See Section 4.14). The Project’s proximity to the existing station would s upport adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for police protection services. In addition, future development of the Project site would be reviewed by the SPD for requirements related to crime protection . Further, future development would be subject to proportionate payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities that could have an environmental impact and a less than significant impact would occur.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 123 iii. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the SCESD and Salinas Union High School District with several schools within a one-mile radius including Sherwood Elementary, Lincoln Elementary School, Roosevelt Elementary School, Salinas High School, Mount Toro High School, and Salinas Pre-School. In the 2021-2022 school year, SCESD had an en rollment of 8,287 students and the Salinas High School District had an enrollment of 16,525 students.

Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could generate new students that would increase the school districts’ enrollment. A School Impact Fee would be assessed for future development of the Project site based on the rates in place at the time payment is due. As stated in Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., payment of School Impact Fees is deemed full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. Therefore, payment of the assessed School Impact Fee would reduce impacts related to new school facilities resulting from implementation of the Project and impacts would be less than significant. iv. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could increase the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest public parks to the Project site include the Laurelwood Neighborhood Park (3.0 acres, 0.4 miles southeast), Rossi Rico Linear Parkway (10.8 acres, 0.4 miles south), Laurel Neighborhood Park (3.7 acres, 0.5 miles east), and Sherwood Park (23.9 acres, 0.8 miles east).

As described in Section 4.16, the city’s current parkland to population ratio is 3.64 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, which meets the city’s standard of three acres per 1,000 people. The proposed Project would allow future buildout of up to 515 multi-family residential units. Based on an average household size of 4.15, the 691 units could generate approximately 2,868 new residents thereby increasing the city’s population from 163,542 to 166,410. The incremental population increase would result in a parkland to population ratio of 3.58, which would still meet the city’s standard. Therefore, residential demand associated with future development of the Project site would maintain the city’s performance standard.

In addition, f uture development would be subject to the applicable SMC regulations, including payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to the city’s park and recreation facilities generated by the incremental population increase. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation could increase the demand for other public services, such as courts, libraries, hospitals, etc. Increased demand as a result of the continued i mplementation of the Project could result in development or expansion of public facilities. Typical environmental impacts associated with the development of these facilities include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, etc. The expansion of these facilities would be subject to CEQA as they are proposed. In addition, future development would be subject to the payment

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 124 of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to these public facilities. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 125

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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?
X
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?
X

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the City of Salinas Recreation and Community Services Department.

Currently, there are approximately 593.5 acres of parkland, which provides a parkland to population ratio of 3.64 acres of parkland per 1,000 p eople. 48 This meets the city’s standard of three (3) acres per 1,000 residents. The nearest public parks to the Project site include the Laurelwood Neighborhood Park (3.0 acres, 0.4 miles southeast), Rossi Rico Linear Parkway (10.8 acres, 0.4 miles south) , Laurel Neighborhood Park (3.7 acres, 0.5 miles east), and Sherwood Park (23.9 acres, 0.8 miles east).

General Plan
The Salinas General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element includes the following goals and policies related to park and recreational facilities and services:

Goal COS-7: Provide, develop, and maintain ample park and recreational facilities that offer a variety of recreational activities.

Policy COS-7 .1: Develop a high-quality public park system that provides adequate space and facilities for a variety of recreational opportunities conveniently accessible to all Salinas residents.

Policy COS-7.2: Maximize the use of built and natural features to develop a citywide network of parks and open spaces with Carr Lake, Gabilan Creek and the Sherwood Park/Rodeo Grounds complex as essential elements of the open space network.

Policy COS-7.3: Plan park and recreation facilities in cooperation with concerned public and private agencies and organizations, particularly school districts and neighborhood residents.

48 City of Salinas, Public Works Department, GIS Division. (Modified October 17, 2022). Parks and Recreation. Accessed on April 4, 2023 , https://cityofsalinas.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/parks-and-recreation/information/?location=13,36.69581,- 121.63405

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 126 Policy COS-7.5: Identify the recreation needs of special user groups, such as the disabled and elderly, and address these in park and recreation facility development.

Policy COS -7.7: Encourage development of private commercial recreational facilities (e.g., golf courses, sports centers, bowling alleys, family fun centers, etc.) to expand community recreational opportunities and to fill unmet needs.

Policy COS-7.8: While supporting the development of private recreational facilities, ensure that the supply and maintenance of public parks and recreational opportunities is adequate to ensure permanent availability of parks and recreational facilities for use by the entire community.

Policy COS-7.9: Require new residential development to provide land and/or fees to achieve a minimum of

3.0 acres per additional 1,000 population for developed public parklands for community or neighborhood parks.

Policy COS-7 .11: Develop and maintain an integrated system of open-space corridors and trails along utility easements, power -transmission-line rights -of-way, the reclamation ditch, stream banks, drainageways, slopes, and other natural features.

Policy COS-7.12: Link activity cent ers, recreational opportunities, transit nodes and other services to the integrated trails network.

Salinas Municipal Code
In addition, the City of Salinas implements a Public Facilities Impact Fee program per SMC Article V-D whereby any new development occurring within city limits is required to contribute its proportionate share of the costs of new public facilities intended to serve said development.

4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ot her recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore increase the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest public parks to the Project site include the Laurelwood Neighborhood Park (3.0 acres, 0.4 miles southeast), Rossi Rico Linear Parkway (10.8 acres, 0.4 miles south), Laurel Neighborhood Park (3.7 acres, 0.5 miles east), and Sherwood Park (23.9 acres,

0.8 miles east).

The proposed Project would allow future buildout of up to 691 multi-family residential units. Based on an average household size of 4.15, the 691 units could generate approximately 2,868 new residents thereby increasing the city’s population from 163,542 to 166,410. The incremental population increase would result in a parkland to population ratio of 3.58, which would still meet the city’s standard. Therefore, residential demand associated with future development of the Project site would maintain the city’s performance standard.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 127 Future development would be subject to the applicable SMC regulations, including payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to the city’s park and recreation facilities generated by the incremental population increase. In addition, future development would be subject to open space provisions as required by the SMC. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Imp act. Future residential development resulting from the Project could include the construction of recreational facilities as required by the SMC . In such cases, development would be subject to compliance with the SMC and would be reviewed and conditioned by the City to ensure that physical effects on the environment are less than significant. Compliance would ensure that the facilities would not be in an area or be built to a scale that would cause an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 128

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently fully developed and paved . Street frontage includes North Davis Road, a six (6)-lane north-south major arterial in addition to West Laurel Drive, which does not have ingress/egress leading to the site due to limited access. Five (5) to six (6) -foot sidewalks are on both sides of the roadways. There are two (2) controlled crosswalks at West Laurel Drive/North Davis Road and North Davis Road/Post Drive. State Route (SR) 101 is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. There is one (1) bus st op adjacent to the site (“Davis/Post” Stop ID: 3250) on North Davis Road and Post Drive for Route 44 – Salinas-Westridge operated by the Monterey - Salinas Transit (MST) with service every 1 hour.

Monterey County Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) adopted the Monterey County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2018 as an update to the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 49 The ATP identifies gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network and opportunity are as for innovative bicycle facility design. Chapter 5.10 of the ATP provides a community profile for the City of Salinas. There are no existing bikeways within the Project site and no proposed bikeway or pedestrian improvements identified adjacent to the Project site.

General Plan
The Circulation Element of th e Salinas General Plan established goals and policies to maintain the operations of existing roadway systems as new developm ent occurs. These policies aim to prevent negative impacts caused by new developments and ensure that adequate transportation system is provided. The following goals and policies

49 Transportation Agency for Monterey County. (201 8). 2018 Monterey County Active Transportation Plan. Accessed April 4, 2023, https://www.tamcmonterey.org/files/991071e61/2018-Monterey-County-Active-Transportation-Plan.pdf.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 129 are generally applicable to the proposed Project.

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

Policy C-1.9: Use traffic calming methods within residential areas where necessary to create a pedestrian- friendly circulation system.

Policy C-1.11: Continue to enforce traffic laws, including those addressing bicycle and pedestrian traffic, to ensure a circulation system that is safe for motorized, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.

Goal C-4: Provide an extensive, safe public bicycle network that provides on-street as well as offstreet facilities.

Policy C-4.3: Encourage existing businesses and require new construction to provide on-premise facilities to aid bicycle commuters, such as on-site safe bicycle parking.

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.

Policy C-4.7: Encourage parking lot designs that provide for safe and secure bicycle parking.

General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-1.3 require a level of service (LOS) evaluation to determine project consistency with the G eneral Plan. However, LOS is no longer required to determine potential transportation impacts under CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines).

City of Salinas Vision Zero: Reducing Serious Injuries and Fatalities on Salinas Streets The City of Salinas adopted the Vision Zero Policy (Resolution No. 21791) on February 11, 2020, commencing the development of a Vision Zero Action Plan. The “Vision Zero” strategy seeks to eliminate all traffic facilities and serve injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. 50 The Vision Zero Action Plan was adopted on

50 City of Salinas. 2022. Vision Zero: Reducing Serious Injuries and Fatalities on Salinas Streets. Accessed April 4, 2023 , https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/traffic-transportation-engineering/vision-zero

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 130 August 24, 2020.51
According to the Action Plan, the Project site is in the vi cinity of the highest collision corridors ( West Laurel Drive from North Davis Road to Sanborn Road). The Action Plan also identifies a High Injury Network (HIN) (Figure 4-14).

The portion of West Laurel Drive and a portion of North Davis Road in the vicinity of the Project site is in the HIN.

The Action Plan identifies implementation actions are identified. Applicable policies for new development, or redevelopment, are as follows.

Action 2.6. Establish internal process for Vision Zero countermeasures to be evaluated and implemented, where feasible, on projects on the HIN.

Action 2.7. Require that new development incorporate Vision Zero principles for any new road construction.

Action 2.8. Require that any redevelopment contribute to street safety improvements required to meet the demand generated by the project.

Action 2.9. Whenever possible, in new or re-development projects, reduce the number of driveways and access points on arterial streets.

CEQA Guidelines
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB743), traffic impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed Project would create on California roads.

If the project adds excessive automobile travel onto roads, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic faci lities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

To implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by adding Section 15064.3. According to Section 15064.3, VMT measures the automobile travel generated from a proposed project (i.e., the additional miles driven).

Here, ‘automobile’ refers to on -road passenger vehicles such as cars and light -duty trucks. If a proposed project adds excessive automobile travel on California roads thereby exceeding an applicable threshold of significa nce, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

51 City of Salinas. 2020. Vision Zero Action Plan. Accessed April 5, 2023 , https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/salinas_vision_zero_action_plan.pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 131

Figure 4-14 High Injury Network Map

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
- High Injury Network
A
✓

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 132 Among its provisions, Section 15064.3(b) establishes criteria for analy zing transportation impacts. Specifically, Section 15064.3(b) (1) establishes a less than significant presumption for certain land use projects that are proposed within ½-mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. If this presumption does not apply to a land use project, then the VMT can be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed.

In the case that quantitative models or methods are not available to the lead agency to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) permits the lead agency to conduct a qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis may evaluate factors including but not limited to the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and construction traffic.

Lastly, Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
SB 743 Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.

The Technical Advisory includes screening thresholds for agencies to use in order to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. • Screening Thresholds for Small Project. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less -than significant transportation impact. This threshold is based on a CEQA categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,00 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. • Map-Based Screening Threshold for Residential and Office Projects. Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. • Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Thresholds. Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain proje cts (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop20 or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 133 have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. • Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development. Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs -housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

According to the Technical Advisory, lead agencies, using more location -specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types.

City of Salinas SB 743 VMT Implementation Policy
The City of Salinas adopted the I nterim Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy on October 13, 2020, to determine transportation impacts under CEQA. 52 The VMT Policy provides guidance and steps to determine the significance of transportation impacts and identify mitigation measures. The VMT Policy provides seven (7) screening criteria per the OPR guidance, concluding that projects that fall within the thresholds would not cause a significant impact regarding VMT. The screening criteria include:
• Small Projects: Less than significant impact if the project generates less than 110 trips per day. • Projects Near High Quality Transit: Less than significant impa ct if the project is 1) within 0.5-miles of an existing major transit stop, 2) maintains a service interval frequency of 15 min or less during peak commute times, 3) has a floor area ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75, and 4) does not include more parking than the municipal code requires.
• Local-Serving Retail: Less than significant impact if the project proposes 1) no single store on -site exceed 50,000 sf, and 2) project is local-serving as determined by the City of Salinas. • Affordable Housing: Less than signif icant impact if the project provides a high percentage of affordable housing as determined by the City of Salinas.
• Local Essential Service: Less than significant impact if buildings less than 50,000 sf. with land use of day care center, public K-12 school, police or fire facility, medical office, or government offices. • Map-based Screening: Less than significant impact if the area of development is under the 15 percent County threshold as shown on the City of Salinas VMT screening map. The screening map is l imited to residential and office projects. (See Figure 4-15)
• Redevelopment Projects: Less than significant impact if project replaces an existing VMT -generating land use and does not result in net overall increase in VMT.

52 City of Salinas. (2020). Senate Bill 743 VMT Implementation Policy . Accessed on April 5, 2023 , https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/community_development_files/final_interim_vmt_policy .pdf

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 134

Figure 4-15 City of Salinas VMT Screening Map - Residential VMT per Capita City ol Salinas
Res identia l VMT per Capita
Hot Appllcible
Al or S.tow Cownty Th,uhold
- 1~ to 1)% Abovtt Ce>unty Tt1ruhokl
- Ht"' CH' Moc. Abo\l• County ThtUMld
0 .& t 1$
Mll•1
Mont•••~ Coun_!r Thtnhokh ,

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 135

4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no development is proposed by the Project, future development of the Project site would be required by the City to comply with all project-level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle, and transit facilities. The Project’s consistency for each facility type is addressed below.

Roadway Facilities
CEQA Guidelines no longer use motorist delays or level of service (LOS) to measure transportation impacts.

However, in evaluating Project consistency with the General Plan, a comparison of LOS is required per General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-1.3. Therefore, a LOS analysis is provided for informational purposes. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition, trip generation rates for mid -rise residential with ground floor commercial (ITE 231), the Project would generate an estimated total average daily trip generation of 2,377 trips. 53 A Trip Generation Memo is provided in Appendix F.

To provide a conservative analysis, Project -generated trips were applied to the intersection with the highest available trip counts in the vicinity of the Project site. The West Laurel Drive/North Davis Road intersection has the highest available trip counts in the vicinity of the Project site with a reported total volume of 23,571 average daily trips.54 55 Assuming all Project-generated trips use this intersection, 25,948 average daily trips would be expected on this roadway resulting in a LOS of A (below 32,000 trips) per General Plan Table C -2 for a six (6)-lane divided arterial (with left turn lane) .56 Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-

1.3, which aims to maintain LOS D for all roadways in the city. As such, impacts to roadway facilities would be less than significant.

Although no physical development is proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with standards for on and off-site improvements. In addition, because the Project site is in the vicinity of the highest collision corridors (West Laurel Drive from North Davis Road to Sanborn Road ) future development would be subject to compliance with implementation actions identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan. To ensure compliance with implementation actions identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan and thereby maintain safety standards at all intersections and roadway segments pursuant to the Plan, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure TRANS -1. Incorporation of the mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related to roadway facilities to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: To maintain safety standards at all intersections and roadway segments pursuant to implementation actions identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan, a traffic impact study shall be required for all

53 According to ITE 231, an Average Rate of 3.44 multiplied by 691 dwelling units equals 2,377 average daily trips. 54City of Salinas. (2018). Signalized Intersections. Accessed April 5,2023, GIS hosting on salinas-gis.ci.salinas.ca.us. 55 The next closest intersection is West Laurel Drive/SR 101 Ramps with an average daily traffic volume of 20,042 trips. 56 23,571 plus 2,377 equals 25,948.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 136 development projects anticipated to generate 110 or more new daily vehicle trips within the Project Area, unless not required by the City. Depending on the results of this study, future developments may be re quired to construct or contribute to street safety improvements to meet the demand generated by the project. Improvements shall be in accordance with the City of Salinas’ Vision Zero Action Plan (i.e. pedestrian -activated crosswalk warning beacon, high vis ibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacon, reduced parking at intersection, intersection control, raised median and street trees, protected bike lanes, and lane reduction). These improvements shall be required as conditions of approval.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
T There are no existing bikeways within the Project site and no proposed bikeway or pedestrian improvements identified adjacent to the Project site. There are two (2) controlled crosswalks at West Laurel Drive/North Davis Road and North Davis Road/Post Drive. According to intersection data available for West Laurel Drive/North Davis Road and North Davis Road/Post Drive , approximately 55 and 75 pedestrians utilize the se crosswalks on a daily basis. Although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site would result in an incremental increase in residents which could result in an increased demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Future development would be subject to review and approval by the City to ensure compliance with existing City plans and policies regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including the Vision Zero Action Plan implementation actions and Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 as identified above. Further, all future development would be subject to the Public Facilities Impact Fee program per SMC Article V-D whereby any new development occurring within city limits is required to contribute its proportionate share of the costs of new public facilitie s intended to serve said development. Through compliance with City plans and policies and payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee, impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities
There is one (1) bus stop adjacent to the site (“Davis/Post” Stop ID: 3250) on North Davis Road and Post Drive for Route 44 – Salinas-Westridge operated by the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) with service every 1 hour. Although no development is currently proposed, future develo pment of the Project site would result in an incremental increase in residents which could result in an increased demand for transit. Increased demand for transit would result in fewer automobile trips, which would not cause an adverse environmental impact . The Project would generate new automobile trips, which could cause a delay for buses utilizing North Davis Road . However, as discussed above, the projected traffic volumes would not have a significant impact. For these reasons, impacts to transit facilities would be less than significant.

Therefore, through compliance with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system (inclusive of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of LOS. Based on the city’s adopted SB 743 VMT Implementation Policy, the Project is eligible to “ screen out” from further VMT analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) using Map-based Screening for residential development and Redevelopment Projects

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 137 for commercial development. As shown in Figure 4-15, the Project site is below County threshold for residential VMT per capita. For the commercial development portion, the Project site currently has a 0.3 FAR, which is larger than the proposed 0.25 FAR commercial use assessed in this study. As such, the Project would replace an existing VMT-generating land use and does not result in net overall increase in VMT. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would have a less than significant impact. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site would be subject to review and approval by the City through the entitlement process. Review by the City would ensure that project design does not include hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dan gerous intersections, or incompatible uses . As discussed above, the Project site is in the vicinity of the highest collision corridors (West Laurel Drive from North Davis Road to Sanborn Road). As such, to reduce safety hazards resulting from future development, the Project would be subject to compliance with implementation actions identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan as incorporated through Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 described under criterion a) .

Through compliance with the city’s standards and Vision Zero Action Plan implementation actions, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses and a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site is subject to review by the City to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that future construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through standard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plan s. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Transportation related mitigation measure TRANS- 1 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 138

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, 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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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,
X
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 PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.5.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cul tural 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 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on April 14, 2022, there are no known local, state, or federal designated historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) on the Project site. While there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physica l development of the site. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL -1 through Mitigation Measure CUL -8 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential historical resources discovered above or below ground

CITY OF SALINAS – General Plan Amendment & Rezone: Laurel West Shopping Center | 139 surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measure s would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project site and its resources have not been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to Section 5024.1. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, there is some possibility that a non -visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, the Project shall incorp orate Mitigation Measure TCR-1 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources of significance to a California Native American tribe discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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 Public Resources Code 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 accordan ce 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 infeas ible, 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 i nclude, 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.