Salinas City Council
June 11, 2024

John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use
Development Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared by
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901
Contact: Robert Latino, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, CA 93940
February 2023

John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use
Development Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared by
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, California 93901
Contact: Robert Latino, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, CA 93940
February 2023

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

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

1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 2

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 2

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 2

4. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

5. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3

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

7. Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 6

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

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

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................13

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................................................13 Tables
Table 1 Full Buildout Summary ............................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Phase 1 Project Summary ........................................................................................................11 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 7

Appendices

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

2 Initial Study

1. Project Title
John Street & Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Robert Latino, Associate Planner
831-758-7206

4. Introduction
The John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project would involve a multi-phase, mixed-use planned unit development (PUD) within 9 future parcels within a 19.7-acre site located on the southeast corner of John and Abbott Streets in Salinas, California. In the short term, Phase 1 of the PUD would include a new extended stay hotel with 111 guest rooms in four stories, with outdoor patios and an interior pool. In the long term, buildout of the PUD would include seven phases; these phases include: 242 residential dwelling units within mixed use buildings and multifamily dwellings, retail, office, a remodel of the existing Butler building, new parking, pedestrian plazas and walking paths, new streets and internal drive accesses, widening of a portion of Abbott Street, and a new signalized intersection at Abbott Street and Maple Street. At its completion, the project would provide a variety of multi-family housing options, supporting uses, and be a pedestrian-friendly community with multiple exterior plazas and walkable paths between buildings. Low impact development (LID) would be incorporated into the project, and landscaping would include a mix of native and native-style plants and trees, watered with drip irrigation.

CEQA Methodology
This Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) evaluates the first phase of the PUD, the hotel, at a site-specific “project level,” consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and 15378(a).

Project-level analysis examines all phases of a proposed project, including planning, construction, and operation, and a site-specific level. This IS-MND evaluates the remaining six phases of the PUD on a “program level,” consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Program-level analysis examines the phases on a more general level, and further environmental review would be conducted as determined appropriate pursuant to CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15161 and 15168 pertain to EIRs; this IS-MND will be applying these guidelines in concept. The legally required contents of a project-level IS-MND are the same as those of a program-level IS-MND, and both Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
approaches have the purpose of informing public agency decisionmakers and the public generally of the potential environmental impacts of a project or program, and to identify ways that these impacts will be mitigated.

This IS-MND will take a hybrid approach and analyze Phase 1 of the PUD on a project level and the remaining buildout of the PUD on a program level, as specific details regarding Phases 2 through 7 are not yet known. This approach will allow decisionmakers and the public to consider the potential environmental effects and mitigation measures associated with Phase 1 in detail and will provide the City greater flexibility to address potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the remaining phases on a comprehensive basis. To facilitate this hybrid analysis, Phase 1 of the PUD will be referred to as “project” or “proposed project,” and the remaining phases will be referred to as “full buildout” of the PUD. Both elements will be referred to as the PUD. This IS-MND will provide the basis for any future project-level CEQA analyses.

5. Project Location
The proposed PUD is located on the southeast corner of the John Street and Abbott Street intersection in the City of Salinas, Monterey County, California. The approximately 19.7-acre site consists of 13 existing parcels and a portion of parcel #002-481-022-000, which have the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN):
 002-481-022-000
 002-481-025-000
 002-481-026-000
 002-481-027-000
 002-481-028-000
 002-481-029-000
 002-481-030-000
 002-481-031-000
 002-481-032-000
 002-481-033-000
 002-481-034-000
 002-481-035-000
 002-371-039-000
 002-371-044-000
The PUD site is bound by John Street and California State Route 68 (SR 68) to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, Spicer Street to the south, and Abbott Street to the west. Access to the PUD site is provided via John, Abbott, and Spicer Streets. Regional access to the PUD site is provided via SR 68 and the John Street exit from U.S. Route 101 (US 101).

Figure 1 shows the location of the site in the region, and Figure 2 shows the PUD site in its neighborhood context.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

4 Figure 1 Regional Location

Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 2 Project Location

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

6 6. General Plan Designation
The site is designated as Office on 13 of the 14 existing parcels, which the General Plan defines as businesses and offices where residential development of comparable impact may be considered.

One parcel is designated General Industrial, which the General Plan defines as “automobile dealerships and repair shops, building material sales, light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and wholesaling” where residential development (single room occupancies and seasonal transitional housing) may be allowed. Additionally, the site is within the Abbott Street Focused Growth Overlay District (FG-4) which the City’s General Plan describes as existing urbanized areas where additional growth and/or redevelopment and revitalization would be appropriate and provide benefits to the community; by selectively increasing density in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, the pressure to develop agricultural lands is also reduced (City of Salinas The City is currently undertaking its General Plan Update and is evaluating increasing density and intensity of uses in the Focus Growth Overlay Districts, which includes the project site. The density and intensity allowed at the project site may increase through the future General Plan Update.

7. Zoning
The site is currently zoned Commercial Office – Abbott Street Focused Growth Overlay (CO – FG-4) on 13 of the 14 existing parcels. Per Salinas Municipal Code (SMC) Section 37-30.190(k)(2), Commercial Office provides areas for primarily for offices, personal services, financial services, mixed use residential, and for residential uses. Per Salinas Municipal Code (SMC) Section 37-40.200, the purpose of the Abbott Street Focused Growth Overlay is to focus growth at high potential, under-utilized sites ("focused growth overlay areas") within Salinas by providing standards that will enhance the city and its neighborhoods and create incentives for mixed use neighborhoods that are active, pedestrian-friendly, safe, and welcoming. One parcel is zoned Industrial – General (IG), which SMC Section 37-30.300(e)(3) defines as areas that provide for the full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, and distribution uses deemed suitable for locations in the city; and protects Salinas’ general industrial areas from competition for space from unrelated commercial uses that could more appropriately be located elsewhere in the City.

A portion of the site is within the Airport Overlay District (AR), which serves the Salinas Municipal Airport. SMC Section 37-40.410 states that the purpose of this district is to fulfill the city's obligations, in accordance with requirements of state law (Government Code Section 65302.3), to implement the airport land use compatibility policies adopted by the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission; regulate land use development within the vicinity of Salinas municipal airport to protect it from potential encroachment by land uses which are incompatible with airport activities and which may impair the future development and use of the airport; and minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards that would result from incompatible land use development within areas around airport..

8. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The PUD site is developed and currently occupied with commercial and light industrial uses, including a produce wholesaler, packing supply store, DMV testing site, parking lots, and vehicle storage. Historically, the site was used for agricultural processing and cooling. As shown in Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses land uses surrounding the site include commercial industrial uses to Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
the north and to the east, general industrial uses to the south, and mixed use and residential uses to the west.

Lincoln Elementary School is located approximately 975 feet or 0.18 mile southwest and US 101 is located approximately 1,240 feet or 0.23 mile east of the PUD site.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

8 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses

Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9

9. Description of Project
The proposed PUD consists of seven phases and would include approximately 242 dwelling units, 149,300 square feet of retail and office use in either freestanding or mixed use buildings. In addition, the PUD would be subject to the Tentative Map process to reconfigure 14 existing parcels into 9 parcels. The PUD would involve cutting approximately 10,300 cubic yards (CY) of earth and filling with 18,500 CY, for a net fill of 8,200 CY. Table 1 Full Buildout Summary summarizes the construction and buildout associated with each phase, and Figure 4 shows the preliminary phasing plan. Density does not include what may be allowed under density bonus law.

Table 1 Full Buildout Summary
Phase Estimated Construction
Duration Buildings Residential
Units
Square Feet
Residential Retail Office Total Square Feet
1 20 months 1A 111* - - - 70,000
2 18 – 20 months 1F, 1J, 1H 28 28,800 21,400 - 50,200 3 14 – 16 months 1G, 1I - - 12,800 12,800 25,600
4 10 – 12 months 1D, 1E - - 14,000 - 14,000
5 10 – 12 months 1B, 1C - 29,400
16,200
-
45,600
6 18 – 20 months 3A – 3F, 4 134
109,600

23,800
- 152,600**
7 20 – 24 months 2A,-2C 80 83,000 19,700 18,100 120,800 Total 110 – 124 months
9 – 10 years
111* / 242
232,800

107,900
30,900 478,800
*Phase 1 Hotel includes 70,000 square feet for 111 guest rooms. **Phase 6 includes 19,200 square feet of parking lifts.

Source: Appendix A

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

10 Figure 4: Preliminary Phasing Plan

Source: Arris Studio Architects

Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11

Phase 1
The first phase of the PUD (the “proposed project”) includes the development of a four-story (56 feet, 8 inches), approximately 70,000-square foot hotel with 111 guest rooms, including 20 double queen studio rooms, 84 king studio rooms, and seven king one-bedroom rooms and various amenities including an indoor pool, pool lounge and BBQ patio, fitness room, outdoor lounge, and breakfast bar. Construction of the hotel, which is estimated to take 20 months, is anticipated to begin September 1, 2022 and conclude May 1, 2024. Table 2 summarizes Phase 1 key project features.

Table 2 Phase 1 Project Summary
Floor Double Queen
Studio
King Studio King One-
Bedroom
Total Area (sf)
First/Ground 5 9 1 15 19,850
Second 5 25 2 32 16,420
Third 5 25 2 32 16,420
Fourth 5 25 2 32 16,420
Total 20 84 7 111 69,110
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: Appendix A
Future Buildout: Phases 2 – 7
While there are no specific site plans for future phases, the project includes a PUD with future buildout of the site. For the purposes of this analysis, the full buildout would include: mixed use buildings (multi-story buildings with ground floor retail spaces and upper floor residential spaces) retail buildings (single-story), retail and office buildings (multi-story buildings), and multifamily buildings (multi-story buildings). Phases 2 through 7 would take approximately ten years to complete. Under the current zoning, the PUD would only allow a net density of 10 dwelling units per net acre, or approximately 197 dwelling units. However, the General Plan Update (GPU), which is already underway may ultimately increase allowed density. Therefore, this environmental analysis is being conducted assuming additional density should it be permitted by underlying zoning in the future.

Proposed Architectural Design
The architectural design of the proposed development of the PUD would be subject to the Mixed Use Design Standards as found in Salinas Municipal Code (SMC) Section 37-30.280; these design standards are intended to assist the designer in understanding the City's requirements for high quality development (residential, mixed use, and nonresidential) in the mixed use districts. These standards complement the development regulations contained in this division by providing good examples of potential design solutions and by providing design interpretations of the various regulations. These standards ensure the highest level of design quality while at the same time City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

12 providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of project designers. These standards are also intended to ensure that buildings and dwellings are visually compatible with one another and adjacent neighborhoods and create mixed use areas, which are attractive, compact, pedestrian and transit-oriented, active, and safe.

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

Wastewater
Wastewater treatment service for the project would be provided by Monterey One Water (M1W), formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. Wastewater would be conveyed to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant located in Marina, approximately five miles northwest of the City.

After development of the proposed hotel, future phases of project development would include upsizing an existing 8-inch sewer line to ensure adequate wastewater capacity for project buildout.

The sewer line would be upsized to a 12-inch line beneath the paved Abbott Street right-of-way between a manhole at the John Street intersection and either a manhole approximately 100 feet south of the Maple Street intersection or a manhole at the Spicer Street intersection. The upsized sewer line would be approximately 875 feet in length between the John Street and Abbott Street intersection and Maple Street, or 1,375 feet between the John Street and Abbott Street intersection and Spicer Street. The timing of sewer line upsizing depends upon the size and timing of Phases 2 through 7. The City will review each phase as applications are received to identify when upsizing is required.

Water
Water supply for the project would be provided by California Water Service and would consist of local groundwater.

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

Gas/Electricity
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Central Coast Community Energy would provide gas and electric services to the PUD.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicle access would be provided by two new private streets, Maple Street and Street A. Maple Street would be perpendicular to Abbott Street and would connect to Street A and several internal private driveways and parking lots. Street A would be perpendicular to Spicer Street and intersect with Maple Street in a future roundabout. The hotel would be accessed via Maple Street and a future private drive that would encircle the building. The hotel requires at least 146 parking spaces, Initial Study

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
which would be provided along the private drive on all sides of the hotel. The full PUD buildout would require the provision of off-street parking requirements subject to the Salinas Municipal Code, which would be dispersed throughout the site and accessible via Maple Street, Street A, and several internal driveways.

Required Approvals
Buildout of the PUD would require approval of a Conceptual Master Site Plan for a Mixed Use Development project, a Conditional Use Permit for Phase 1, a Tentative Map, and subsequent approvals for future Phases consistent with the Mixed Use Development use.

Other Approvals
As part of this application, the City and the Applicant may enter into a Development Agreement.

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

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
On November 3, 2021, the City of Salinas mailed local tribes an Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letter via certified mail. Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

14 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
■ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

16 □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential 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.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

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

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

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

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

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

Figure 4 and Figure 5 below show existing views of the project site. The visual quality of the project site is low due to the condition of the site, which includes one-story, rectangular industrial and warehouse buildings with dilapidated rooflines, foundations of former buildings , and expansive surface parking lots and paved areas in between. The areas to the north and south of the project site have a similar visual quality as they also contain older, one-story industrial uses; the area to the east of the project site has a moderate visual quality with more modern, one-story commercial/industrial buildings; and the area to the east of the project site has a moderate visual quality with older, one - story residential and commercial uses ranging from one to two stories in height.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Figure 4 Project Site Photos

Northeastern portion of site facing east towards Building 3 Eastern portion of site facing west towards Building 2

Northwestern portion of site facing south towards Building 1 Northern portion of site facing west towards existing storage tank

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

20 Figure 5 Project Site Photos cont.

Northern portion of site facing west towards Abbott Street Northern portion of site facing southeast towards Building 2

Southern portion of site facing south towards Spicer Street Eastern portion of site facing west towards Abbott Street

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

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

The Salinas General Plan notes that public views are available from US 101, and that these views are often the first impression of Salinas for visitors. The General Plan notes that view corridors of the community from US 101 include “agricultural views in the northern portion of the planning area, views of the [Northridge and Westridge shopping centers and the Auto Center], long vistas into Carr Lake [to the east of the highway], and potential office and commercial development in the central portion of the city” (Salinas 2002b).

The nearest public views identified in the General Plan to the project site are the Upper Carr Lake Views, located approximately 1.3 miles northeast across the US 101, which are not visible from the project site due to distance and existing development that block potential views. In addition, the proposed four-story (56 feet, 8 inches) hotel and development envisioned under the remaining project phases would be consistent with development standards and of similar height and massing of surrounding development, including the four-story Hampton Inn and Suites Salinas hotel, located approximately 720 feet east of the project site. For these reasons, the proposed hotel and future development under the remaining project phases would not impact surrounding public views and, therefore, would have no impact on scenic vistas.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no roadways in the City of Salinas that are officially designated for the state scenic highway system. No other road segments in the City are listed as eligible for designation (Caltrans 2021). The site does not contain trees or rock outcroppings. In addition, the project site does not qualify as a historical resource and that no historic resources are within or directly adjacent to the project area (Appendix A). Off-site improvements associated with the project would not occur within a state scenic highway or the viewshed of a state scenic highway. The site is not visible from a state scenic highway, and the project would not substantially damage scenic resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by SR 68, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, commercial industrial uses, general industrial uses, and mixed-use and residential uses. As discussed under criterion (a), Phase 1 of the project would include the construction of a four-story (56 feet, 8 inches) hotel with ground-level parking and landscaping on an approximate 19.7-acre project site, which currently consists of commercial and light industrial uses, including a produce wholesaler, packing supply store, DMV driving school, parking lots, and vehicle storage. The project site is City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

22 designated as CO – FG-4 in the City Zoning Code. Phase 1 of the project would increase the massing and intensity of development on the project site and introduce a building with a different architectural style. As such, Phase 1 of the project would represent a substantial change in the visual character of the project site.

Although the proposed hotel would increase the massing and height of development compared to the existing buildings on site, Phase 1 of the project would comply with the purpose of the CO – FG- 4 zoning district in the City’s Zoning Code, which promotes areas primarily for offices, personal services, financial services, mixed-use residential, and residential uses (SMC Section 37-30.190[k][2]) and promotes growth at high potential, under-utilized sites ("focused growth overlay areas") within the city by providing standards that will enhance the city and its neighborhoods and create incentives for mixed-use neighborhoods that are active, pedestrian-friendly, safe, and welcoming (SMC Section 37-40.200). The proposed hotel would be similar in height and massing as the surrounding development, including the four-story Hampton Inn and Suites Salinas hotel, located approximately 720 feet east of the project site. In addition, the project would introduce a building of higher visual quality than the existing commercial and light industrial buildings on site with a contemporary design and several landscaping elements surrounding the hotel. The additional landscaping would reduce the visual impact of the project and soften the appearance of the new building. Furthermore, the proposed hotel would adhere to the established design guidelines in the SMC (Sections 37-30.210 and 37-40.230) intended to ensure buildings and dwellings are visually compatible with one another and with adjacent neighborhoods.

As with Phase 1, development under the remaining project phases would comply with the purpose of the City’s CO – FG-4 zoning district and would be similar in height and massing as the surrounding development. Development under the remaining project phases would include multi-story mixed use buildings, single-story retail buildings, multi-story retail and office buildings, and multi-story multi-family buildings with a “modern Latin” design aesthetic. These buildings would include a variety of materials and textures, such as stucco, wood accents, corrugated or standing seam metal, and board-formed concrete which would be of higher visual quality than the existing commercial and light industrial buildings on site. Upsizing of the sewer line would occur within an existing paved roadway, which would return to existing visual conditions after construction. Based on the discussion above, the proposed hotel and future development under the remaining project phases would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality nor significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Therefore, impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Stationary sources of light currently present on the project site include exterior parking lot and building security lighting; moving sources of light include the headlights of vehicles driving on roadways near the project site. Streetlights and other security lighting also serve as sources of light in the evening hours.

Glare is defined as focused, intense light emanating directly from a source or indirectly when light reflects from a surface. Daytime glare is caused in large part by sunlight shining on highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Reflective surfaces are associated with buildings that have expanses of polished or glass surfaces, light-colored pavement, and the windshields of parked cars.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

The project area is largely developed and includes commercial industrial uses to the north and to the east, general industrial uses to the south, and mixed use and residential uses to the west. Light from exterior and interior night lighting on buildings and in parking lots, along with headlights of cars traveling on city streets and in parking lots, is relatively high. Existing sources of glare include parked cars and from east/west facing windows that reflect the sun as it transitions. In areas where mature street trees exist, glare from parked cars is reduced somewhat.

The project site is currently illuminated with parking lot and security lighting. The lighting conditions on this portion of the project site is commensurate with the rest of the site and surrounding areas.

The glare conditions are consistent with an urban area where cars park in street lots and the sun shines on windshields or traversed by motorists in the evening where headlights create potential, temporary glare impacts.

The proposed project would include the development of a four-story (56 feet, 8 inches) hotel and various mixed use, retail, retail and office, and multi-family buildings which would introduce new sources of light at the project site. The proposed hotel would incorporate exterior lighting in the form of pedestrian walkway and parking lot lighting, as well as building-mounted lighting on the rear side of the hotel. Additionally, interior lighting would be visible through the windows of the proposed hotel and future development. These light sources would not have a significant impact on the night sky, as they would only incrementally add to the existing background light levels already present from the surrounding street lighting and urban development. Because of the existing, relatively high ambient lighting levels near the project site, the hotel and future development would not substantially alter this condition. Upsizing of the sewer line would not require additional sources of light.

Project compliance with SMC Section 37-50.480 would require building and parking lot lighting be designed to generate the lowest possible amount of light while still providing for safety and security.

Specifically, SMC Section 37-50.480 requires the following:
 Outdoor lighting shall employ cutoff optics that allows no light emitted above a horizontal plane running through the bottom of the fixture.
 Parking lots shall be illuminated to no more than an average maintained two and four-tenths footcandle at ground level with uniform lighting levels.  All building-mounted and freestanding parking lot lights (including the fixture, base, and pole) shall not exceed a maximum of 25 feet in height in all districts.  Lighting adjacent to other property or public rights-of-way shall be shielded to reduce light trespass.
 No portion of the lamp (including the lens and reflectors) shall extend below the bottom edge of the lighting fixture nor be visible from an adjacent property or public right-of-way.  A point to point lighting plan showing horizontal illuminance in footcandles and demonstrating compliance with this section shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

New sources of glare would include windows and glass components associated with the proposed hotel and future development. The frontage of the hotel would be painted a light gray color that could also generate glare if positioned so that the sun shines on it for extended periods. SMC Section 37 -

30.280 details design standards to reduce glare on residential, mixe d-use, and non -residential development. Relative to glare, this includes the following:

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

24  Restrictions on roof materials, including prohibiting highly reflective surfaces that create glare  Use of intermittent awnings and canopies to shield windows from direct sun that would create glare
 Prohibiting windows that have reflective glass
 Use of exterior color palettes that are compatible with adjacent structures and that are not highly reflective (e.g., bright white)
Building windows would also be required to comp ly with Title 24 Energy Standards by providing ultraviolet protection with polarization to reduce light and glare onto adjacent uses.

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
□ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
□ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
□ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
□ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The PUD site is within a fully developed urban area in the City of Salinas. According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program, there is no existing City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

26 Important Farmland on or adjacent to the site. The site, as well as all surrounding properties, are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (DOC 2018). In addition, the site and off-site improvement areas (sewer line upsizing) are not designated for agriculture, used for agricultural production, or under a Williamson Act contract (County of Monterey 2010). Dense urban development is present between the site and the nearest agricultural operations, which occur approximately 4,700 feet north. As a result, development of the mixed-use project would not convert farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning, or have the potential to result in the loss or conversion of farmland into non- agricultural use. There would be no impact.

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

NO IMPACT

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

3 Air Quality

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

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

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD). As the local air quality management agency, MBARD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are

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

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

28 met or exceeded, the NCCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as non-attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The NCCAB is designated a nonattainment area for the ozone and PM10 CAAQS. (CARB 2021).

Air Quality Management
Because the NCCAB currently exceeds the state ozone and PM10 standards, MBARD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the CAAQS. In March 2017, MBARD adopted its most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to demonstrate a pathway for the region to make progress toward meeting the ozone CAAQS. Given that NOx emissions are a precursor to ozone formation, the AQMP includes measures to reduce NOx emissions that focus on on-road and off-road vehicles (MBARD 2017).

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds
The analysis of the project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in the MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008) as well as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Table 2 presents MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for construction and operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. These represent levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the NCCAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purpose of this analysis, the project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions from development facilitated by the project would exceed the thresholds shown in Table 2.

The CO thresholds provided by MBARD, as presented in Table 2, are designed to screen out from further analysis projects that would have a less than significant impact from CO emissions. Projects that exceed these thresholds may but would not necessarily result in a CO hotspot and would require additional analysis.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

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

Source: MBARD 2008
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., mid-rise apartments and a parking lot), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of the project as described under Section 2, Project Description.

Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on- site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the time equipment is in operation by emission factors. The construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on the construction schedule provided by the applicant, which is included in the Project Description. In addition, the project is analyzed using the CalEEMod default construction equipment list for a project of this type and size. Construction would be over seven phases, with each phase lasting between 10 and 24 months. Total project construction would occur over 9 to 10 years. It is assumed that 8,200 cubic yards of fill would be required. Fill was allocated based on the parcel size for each phase. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered, and that the project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the project would comply with MBARD Rules 426 for architectural coatings (50 grams per liter for flat or non-flat coatings; and 100 grams per liter for traffic marking coatings).

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

30 Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site. The default trip generation rates were used, which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10th edition trip generation rates. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. Default area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings based on land use type. In addition, default rates for water consumption and solid waste generation were used.

A CO hotspot is a localized CO concentration that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. The entire Basin conforms to state and federal CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. One station within the NCCAB reports CO emissions data and only reports maximum 1-hour and average daily concentrations of CO. For 2020 the Salinas-High School monitoring station in Monterey County reported maximum 1-hour and average daily concentrations of 1.6 ppm and 1.074 ppm, respectively (CARB, n.d.).
2 These are well below the respective 1-hour
and 8-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm. Given the ambient concentrations, which includes mobile as well as stationary sources, a project in NCCAB would need to emit concentrations twelve times the hourly maximum ambient emissions for all sources near the Salinas-High School station before project emissions would exceed the 1-hour standard. Additionally, the project would need to emit eight times the daily average for ambient concentrations near the monitoring station within eight hours to exceed the 8-hour standards. Typical development projects would not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot spot. Therefore, CO hotspots are not discussed further in this document.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A project could be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. MBARD uses growth forecasts provided by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to project population-related emissions, which are used in developing the AQMP for the NCCAB.

AMBAG is the regional planning agency for Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and the environment. The AQMP utilizes the 2014 Regional Growth Forecasts adopted by the AMBAG Board in June 2014 as the basis for emissions forecasting and the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP (MBARD 2017).
3 The AQMP population forecast for Monterey County is a population of 479,487 persons in 2030, an increase of 64,430 persons from a population of 415,057 persons in 2010. The project would involve the development of up to 242 dwelling units. The project is anticipated to provide housing units for 932 new residents in the city (refer to Section 14, Population and Housing, for details on this calculation). This increase of 932 residents would be within the AQMP’s projected 2030 population increase of 64,430 persons for Monterey County. Additionally, as described under checklist question (b) below, the project would not exceed MBARD’s construction or operational ozone precursor thresholds. Therefore, both the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would be within the population forecasts used in

2 Data for 2020 was used as the data for 2021 has not been fully verified for all sites. 3 On June 13, 2018, AMBAG’s Board of Directors adopted the 2018 Regional Growth Forecast. However, the most recent AQMP was adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast; therefore, the 2014 forecasts are utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

the AQMP. Additionally, as discussed below under Threshold (b), operational VOC or NOX emissions would be less than 137 pounds per day. For these reasons, the project would not generate air pollutant emissions that would impede or conflict with the AQMP’s goal of achieving attainment of the State ozone standards. As a result, the project would not conflict with the implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The NCCAB is designated nonattainment for the ozone and PM 10 CAAQS. The following subsections
discuss emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). In addition, exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and construction vehicles along with VOC emissions that would be released during the drying phase of architectural coating. Table 3 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during each phase of project construction. As shown therein, construction-related emissions would be well below MBARD thresholds. Therefore, construction of both the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

32 Table 3 Estimated Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Phase VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 22 26 29 <1 8 4
Phase 2 18 24 30 <1 8 4
Phase 3 15 22 29 <1 8 4
Phase 4 14 12 15 <1 6 3
Phase 5 28 17 23 <1 8 4
Phase 6 55 24 32 <1 8 4
Phase 7 41 17 32 <1 7 4
Maximum Daily Emissions 41 26 32 <1 8 4
MBARD Thresholds N/A N/A NA N/A 821 NA
Threshold Exceeded? N/A N/A NA N/A No N/A
lbs/day = pounds per day; PM 10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; VOC = volatile organic compounds (also referred to as ROG, or reactive organic gases); NO X = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO X = oxides of sulfur; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Emission data is pulled from “unmitigated” results. See Appendix B for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions. 1 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.

Operational Emissions
Operation of both the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating and cooking), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). Table 4 summarizes the project’s total maximum daily operational emissions by emission source. As shown therein, operational emissions well below MBARD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operation of both the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases, including upsizing of the sewer line, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Table 4 Estimated Unmitigated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 11 <1 20 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 3 2 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 32 32 272 <1 61 17
Total 43 35 294 1 62 17
MBARD Thresholds 137 137 550 150 82 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; PM 10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; VOC = volatile organic compounds (also referred to as ROG, or reactive organic gases); NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur; SO2 = sulfur dioxide Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer model ed emissions. Emission data is pulled from “unmitigated” results. See Appendix B for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, most sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences (CARB 2005). Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single- family residences. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences adjacent to the project site’s southeastern boundary. The project also includes the siting of new sensitive receptors.

Localized air quality impacts on sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and TACs, which are discussed in the following subsections.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, discussed in the following paragraphs, outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2017).

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

The proposed project's construction would occur in phases over approximately nine to ten years.

The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, and a more extended exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

34 individual. The risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a more extended period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70‑year exposure period. However, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.

The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The proposed project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off- Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these requirements would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. However, given the construction area's proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, impacts from TACs could be potentially significant.

Operation
Common sources of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, truck distribution centers, freeways, and other major roadways (BAAQMD 2017). The project does not propose construction of gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, or roadways or other permitted or non-permitted sources of TAC or PM2.5. The project would not include any stationary sources of TACs or PM2.5that would expose both on-site and nearby off-site receptors to substantial TAC or PM2.5 emissions. No impact would occur from project operation.

Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be implemented:
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 interim standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 interim standards.  Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site.  Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.  The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

Significance After Mitigation
With its incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would be required to use off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the most stringent and environmentally protective CARB and USEPA Tier 4 off-road emissions standards, or alternatively fueled equipment which would substantially reduce DPM emissions. The Tier 4 standards reduce Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

DPM emissions by approximately 81 to 96 percent as compared to equipment that meet the Tier 2 off-road emissions standards, depending on the specific horsepower rating of each piece of equipment. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations that would potentially exceed cancer risk greater than ten per one million population. Construction-related health impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. In addition, MBARD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials which would cause a nuisance or detriment to a considerable number of persons or to the public, with the exception of odors from agricultural activities. Overall, construction of both the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction- related impacts would be less than significant.

Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (MBARD 2008). The project would not facilitate the development of any uses associated with objectionable odors. Operational odor emissions from the project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and trash receptacles and would be comparable with those generated by existing residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project and upsizing of the sewer line would not result in other emissions (including odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. No operational impacts would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

36 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
□ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
□ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
□ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□ □ □ ■
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

38 Special-status species are those plants and animals: 1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service under the Federal Endangered Species Act; 2) listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act; 3) recognized as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4) afforded protection under Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); and 5) occurring on lists 1 and 2 of the CDFW California Rare Plant Rank system.

Rincon reviewed agency databases and relevant literature for baseline information on special status species and other sensitive biological resources occurring or potentially occurring at the project site and in the immediate surrounding area. The following sources were reviewed for background information:
 CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2020a)  CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2020b) and Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2020c)
 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021)
 USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2021a)  USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2020b)
 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2020c)
Rincon conducted a review of applicable sources listed above for recorded occurrences of special status plant and wildlife taxa in the region. For this review, the search included all occurrences within the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing the project site (Salinas), and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Moss Landing, Prunedale, San Juan Bautista, Marina, Natividad, Seaside, Spreckels, and Chualar). Strictly marine species were excluded from further analysis given the terrestrial nature of the project.

Rincon compiled these sources into a list of regionally occurring special status plants and animals and evaluated each species for potential to occur based on habitat conditions and proximity to known occurrences. Rincon also reviewed the NWI (USFWS 2020c) for potential aquatic resources, including jurisdictional waters of the United States or waters of the State.

Due to an absence of suitable habitat or anthropogenic influences within or near the project site, species identified in the database and literature review would not be expected to occur. It should be noted that while habitat on the project site does not support other specific special-status species that were evaluated, the ruderal vegetation and trees could support various species of migratory nesting birds. Examples of migratory nesting birds that could nest within this type of ruderal habitat include Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is located in an urbanized area of Salinas and is currently developed with commercial and warehouse buildings, including a produce wholesaler, packing supply store, parking lots, vehicle storage, and other light industrial uses. Ground cover at the site consists of paved Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

parking areas, as well as various commercial and warehouse buildings, with a few areas of exposed ground surface in landscaped areas.

Minimal landscaping is present on the project site and consists primarily of ornamental trees. Based on the developed nature of the area and lack of suitable habitat located within it, no federal- or state-listed endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise sensitive flora or fauna are anticipated to be located at the project site (CNPS 2021; CDFW 2020a; USFWS 2021a). However, existing trees on and around the site could contain bird nests and birds that are protected under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the CFGC, which specifically protect active nests of native birds and raptors. Protected birds include all common songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (feathers, plumes etc.), nests, and eggs.

Construction of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development proposed under the remaining project phases would result in the removal of existing trees at the site. Ground disturbance, construction activities, or vegetation removal that would result in destruction of active bird nests or abandonment of an active bird nest could potentially be a violation of the CFGC.

Impacts to nesting birds would only be considered a significant impact under CEQA if the species affected were federal or state listed species, or if the result had a population-level effect on non- listed sensitive species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure protection of nesting birds that may be present on the site during construction activities. This would reduce the potentially significant impacts to special status species to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance
For all phases of the proposed project that contain trees, construction, grading, site preparation and other ground disturbance activities required for future development, including vegetation or tree removal, shall not occur during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Salinas, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance. In the event that active nests are discovered, a minimum buffer of 300 feet for raptors and 50-foot radius avoidance buffers for passerines shall be established around such active nests and no construction or personnel shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between September 1 and January 31.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

40 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The CNDDB contains records of seven sensitive natural communities within the area shown on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing the project site (Salinas), and the eight surrounding quadrangles. These communities include: Central Dune Scrub; Central Maritime Chaparral; Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh; Coastal Brackish Marsh; Monterey Pine Forest; Northern Coastal Salt Marsh; and Valley Needlegrass Grassland (CDFW 2020a). As described above, vegetation on the project site consists of minimal landscaping and several scattered and isolated trees. Native grassland, such as Valley Needlegrass Grassland, do not occur on the project site, nor does chaparral vegetation. There are no surface waters or shallow groundwater expressions on or adjacent to the project site and associated riparian and marshland vegetation does not occur within or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2020c). Scattered trees on the project site do not constitute woodland. Ruderal vegetation cover, such as that found at the project site, is not considered a sensitive natural community. Because no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur on the site, the project would have no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally prote cted wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine if wetland and/or non-wetland waters had been previously documented and mapped on or in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2021c). No such features occur on or adjacent to the project site. The nearest potential jurisdictional water or wetland feature to the project site is Alisal Creek, a channelized riverine feature, located approximately 0.2 mile east of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve or require the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to the bed, bank, channel, or adjacent upland area of Alisal Creek. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife movement corridors are generally linear and consist of things such as coastlines, riverways and riparian zones. Additionally, some wildlife species may move through certain corridors in response to topography, such as a canyon through rugged mountains, or in response to its prey. The project site is relatively flat and does not contain wildlife movement corridors. The project site is not part of a known migration route of wildlife species and is surrounded by existing development (CDFW 2020a; USFWS 2021b). As described above, migratory nesting birds may nest on-site, but may also rest or forage on-site during migration or breeding. However, the ruderal vegetation on- site is not unique, and removal of vegetation for the proposed project would not substantially reduce the abundance of this type of ruderal vegetation such that the migration of birds would be at risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Chapter 35 of the SMC sets forth regulations and provisions pertaining to the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees and shrubs in Salinas. According to Section 35-1 of the SMC, the City defines a heritage and/or landmark tree as 1) an oak tree that is at least 24 inches in diameter at two feet above the ground surface; or 2) an oak tree that is visually significant, historically significant, or exemplary in its species. Section 35-18 of the SMC prohibits the removal of heritage or landmark trees from City property unless approved by the City’s Public Works Director.

Heritage and landmark trees do not occur on the project site, and construction of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would not result in the removal of heritage or landmark trees.

Pursuant to Section 35-9 of the SMC, no person shall root-trim, trim, prune, plant, injure, remove, or interfere with any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, parkway or alley in the city without written permission from the City’s Public Works Director. Vegetation within the project site mainly consists of trees that grow within proximity to public streets. Removal of these trees, if required for construction of the proposed hotel and future development under the remaining project phases, would be in conformance with the SMC, as applicable.

There are no other ordinances or local policies protecting biological resources applicable to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with such plans. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

42 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
□ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
□ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
□ □ ■ □
To identify known cultural resources in and in the vicinity of project site, Rincon reviewed the results of a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). This records search w as conducted to identify previously completed cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project site. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, the Built Environment Resource Directory , and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list . See Appendix A for the complete Cultural Resources Study.

The CHRIS records search identified seven previously conducted cultural resource studies within a

0.5-mile radius of the project site, of which, two are located within the project site (S-024139 and S- 027128). None of the seven previously conducted cultural resources studies identified cultural resources within the project site. The NWIC records search results identified four previously recorded cultural resources (one historic building and three historic structures) within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site.

A summary of the previous studies that the NWIC records search identified and the previously- recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site are presented below in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found..

Table 5 Previously-Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5-mile of Project Site SCCIC
Report No. Author Year Study
Relationship
to Project Site
S-007317 R. Paul
Hampson, Gary
Breschini, Trudy
Hversat, and
Micki Ryan
1985 Preliminary Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 002-214-31 and 33, Salinas, Monterey
County, California
Outside
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

44 SCCIC
Report No. Author Year Study
Relationship
to Project Site
S-007317a R. Paul
Hampson and
Gary Breschini
1985 Secondary Archaeological Testing of Assessors Parcel Numbers 0021-214-31 and 33 in Salinas, Monterey County, California
Outside
S-020573 Barry Price 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility SF-724-07, Salinas, Monterrey County, California (letter report)
Outside
S-022657 Izaak Sawer,
Laurie Pfeiffer,
Karen
Rasmussen, and
Judy Berryman
2000 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Along Onshore Portions of the Global West Fiber Optic Cable Project
Outside
S-024139 Robert Cartier 2000 Cultural Resource Evaluation of Lands for the Regional Solid Waste Facilities Project in the County of Monterey
Within
S-027128 Terry Joslin 2003 Negative Historic Property Survey Report for the Salinas Highway 68 Rehabilitation Project, Monterey County, 05- MON-68, PM 16.8/21.9 (KP 27.0/35.2), 05-169-491500
Within
S-027128a Terry Joslin 2001 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Salinas Highway 68 Rehabilitation Project, Monterey County, 05- MON-68, PM 16.8/21.9 (KP 27.0/35.2), 05-169-491500
Outside
S-029275 None 2004 Archaeological and Historical Investigations for the Tynan Mixed Use Development Project in the City of Salinas,
Monterey County
Outside
S-033061 Nancy Sikes,
Cindy Arrington,
Bryon Bass,
Chris Corey,
Kevin Hunt,
Steve O’Neil,
Catherine
Pruett, Tony
Sawyer, Michael
Tuma, Leslie
Wagner, and
Alex Wesson
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwes Network Construction Project, State of
California
Outside
S-033061a None 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report on Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of
California
Outside
S-033061b Nancy Sikes 2007 Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project (letter report)
Outside
S-039600 Cher Paterson
and Kathleen
Crawford
2012 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SFO5724A (SF724 Salinas),
340 Pajaro Street, Salinas, Monterey County, California Outside
S-039600a Kathleen
Crawford
2012 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF05724A (SF724 Salinas), 340 Pajaro Street, Salinas, Monterey County, California. (letter report) Outside
S-041437 Mary Doane and
Gary Breschini
2013 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Sanborn Road/US 101 Interchange and Elvee Drive Project in Salinas, Monterey County, California
Outside
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

SCCIC
Report No. Author Year Study
Relationship
to Project Site
S-046966 Wendy Nelson,
Mike
Darcangelo, Ed
Mike, and
Amanda Cannon
2003 Historic Property Survey Report: Airport Boulevard Interchange, U.S. Route 101, Monterey County
Outside
S-046966a Wendy Nelson 2002 Negative Archaeological Survey Report Outside S-046966b Wendy Nelson 2003 Negative Archaeological Survey Report (Supplemental) Outside S-046966c Kelli Brasket 2003 Second Supplemental Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Airport Interchange Project in Monterey
County, California
Outside
S-046966d Stephen Wee 2003 Historic Architectural Survey Report: With attached Historic Resources Evaluation Report and Bridge Evaluation: Airport Boulevard Interchange, City of Salinas, Monterey County, California
Outside
S-046966e Stephen Wee
and Jessica
Herrick
2003 Historic Resources Evaluation Report, Reclamation Ditch No. 1665: Airport Boulevard Interchange Project, City of Salinas, Monterey County, California
Outside
S-046966f Christopher
McMorris and
Theresa Saputo
Rogers
2003 Bridge Evaluation: Bride 44-120, Highway 101, at Sanborn Road, Bridge 44-121, State Route 68 (John Street), at
Highway 101, Bridge 44-124, Highway 101 at Airport
Boulevard, Airport Boulevard Interchange, City of Salinas, Monterey County, California
Outside
S-046966g Knox Mellon and
Gary Hamby
2003 FHWA030618A; HAD-CA, File No. 05-MON-101 KP
136.79/1.9.36, Airport Boulevard Interchange Project, 05- 349500, Document No. P 45213 [Section 106 Consultation
on the Reconstruction of the Airport Boulevard Interchange, City of Salinas, Monterey County]
Outside
Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021 (Appendix A)

Table 6 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of Project Site Primary
Number
Resource
Type Description
Recorder(s)
and Year(s)
Eligibility
Status
Relationship
to Project Site
P-27-002322 Historic
Structure
El Camino Real
(Highway 101)
1999 (John Berg, Steven Mikesell,
Far Western & JRP Historical
Consulting Services); 2002
(Theresa Rogers, JRP Historical
Consulting Services)
Recommended
ineligible for
CHRR
Outside
P-27-002780 Historic
Structure
Tynan Lumber
Yard
2004 (Kurt Lambert, Pacific
Municipal Consultants)
Recommended
ineligible for
NRHP and
CRHR
Outside
P-27-003192 Historic
Building
Pacific Bell 2012 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford
Historic Services)
Recommended
ineligible for
NRHP
Outside
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

46 Primary
Number
Resource
Type Description
Recorder(s)
and Year(s)
Eligibility
Status
Relationship
to Project Site

P-27-003551 Historic
Structure
John Street
Overcrossing
2003 (Theresa Rogers, JRP
Historical Consulting Services)
Recommended
eligible for
NRHP
Outside
Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021 (Appendix A)
In addition to the CHRIS records search, Rincon completed archival research between September and October 2021 and focused on the review of a variety of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the project site and its surroundings. The following is a list of sources consulted.
 Historic aerial photographs accessed digitally via Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online, Inc. and the University of California, Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Lab  Historic topographic maps accessed digitally via United States Geologic Survey  Historic newspaper articles accessed digitally via ancestry.com, newspapers.com, and genealogybank.com
 City of Salinas local register criteria for designation the city’s Municipal Code, “Article 2. Historic Resources Board”
 Other sources as identified in the References section of the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix A)
Furthermore, Rincon conducted a cultural resources survey of the project site on October 12, 2021.

All accessible portions of the project site were visually inspected . Exposed ground surface was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire- affected rock) and ecofacts (marine shell and bone) . The project site was also inspected for soil discoloration that may indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics) , and for g round disturbances, such as burrows and draina ges. The survey also consisted of a visual inspection of all built environment features on the property to assess their overall condition and integrity, and to identify and document any potential character-defining features.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The project site was historically a produce packing facility owned by the Monterey County Ice and Development Company (MCIDC), one of the largest producers and sellers of ice and packaged produce for long distance shipments in Monterey County (Santa Cruz News, 14 October 1927), and contains three industrial buildings of 45 or more years of age constructed by the MCIDC. The Cultural Resources Study concluded that the MCIDC itself did not make significant contributions to broad patterns of agricultural history and that no individual associated with the MCIDC made singular historical contributions to local, regional, state or national history. In addition, the construction and design of the three existing industrial buildings constructed by the MCIDC are not noteworthy enough for designation. The project site has not yielded and is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history. As such, the project site is not recommended eligible Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

for listing as a contributor to any existing or potential historic district, and is recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or for local designation to the City of Salinas Historic Register, and therefore is not considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA (Appendix A).

Furthermore, the CHRIS records search and a review of the City of Salinas Historic Register failed to identify any other cultural resources, including historic districts, within proximity to the project site.

Therefore, the project site and existing on-site buildings do not qualify as a historical resource.

The project would require demolition of Building 1 during Phase 1 of the project for construction of the proposed four-story hotel and Building 2 during Phase 6 of the project for construction of future development. Because the buildings do not qualify as a historical resource, their removal would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The entire project site is developed, and ground visibility is obscured by buildings or non-native ornamental vegetation. No archaeological resources are known to exist in the vicinity of the project site and the records search, Sacred Lands File search, and the pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological resources on the project site or in a 0.5-mile radius. In addition, no information was identified to suggest that the project area may be sensitive for archaeological resources. However, construction of the proposed four-story hotel, upsizing of the sewer, and future development under the remaining project phases would require excavation up to depths of four feet which could result in unanticipated discoveries of previously unrecorded archaeological resources. Impacts would be potentially significant if resources are damaged or destroyed. Accordingly, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet shall be halted and the project archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

48 c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interre d outside of formal cemeteries?
The records search did not identify cemeteries or archaeological resources containing human remains within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances, as would be required for construction of the four-story hotel and future development under the remaining project phases. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. In addition to being potential archaeological resources, human burials have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protects them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the entity to resolve any related disputes.

If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the Alameda County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and provide recommendations for treatment to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure impacts to human remains are less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

50 6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
□ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
Energy Setting
Electricity
In 2019, California’s total electric generation was 279,510 gigawatt-hours (GWh) (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2020a). Monterey County, the location of the proposed project, consumed approximately 2,434 GWh of electricity, or 0.9 percent of the electricity generated in California, in 2019.

The project would be served by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), the region’s community choice electricity provider. 3CE forecasts electricity demand in its service area from 2018 through 2027, during which time Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties are anticipated to see an increase in annual electricity demand from 2,567 gigawatt-hours to 3,827 GWh (3CE 2018).

Natural Gas
Natural gas forms a third of energy commodities consumed in California and consumers fall into four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, and electric power generation (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020). In 2020, California consumed about 12,331 million U.S. therms (Mthm) of natural gas and Monterey County consumed approximately 110 million U.S. therms (CEC 2020b).

The proposed project would be provided natural gas by PG&E. Table 7 details the natural gas consumption by sector in PG&E’s service area. In 2020, PG&E provided approximately 38 percent of the total natural gas and generated in California (CEC 2020c).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Table 7 Natural Gas Consumption in PG&E Service Area in 2020 Agriculture
and Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other Industry
Mining and
Construction Residential Total Usage
44 797 51 1,585 140 1,891 4,508
Notes: Usage expressed in MMThm
Source: CEC 2020c
Petroleum
To reduce statewide vehicle emissions, California requires that all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), a cleaner formulation of gasoline that results in lower emissions of ozone, CO and other air pollutants when burned. Californians consumed approximately 11,173 million gallons of gasoline and 1,626 million gallons of diesel in 2020 (CEC 2020d). Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California and is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (CEC 2020d). Diesel is the second most used fuel in California and is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles (CEC 2020d). Both gasoline and diesel are primarily petroleum-based, and their consumption releases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO
2) and NOX.

In 2020, approximately 34 percent of the state’s energy consumption was used for transportation activities (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020). Though California’s population and economy are expected to grow, gasoline demand is projected to decline from roughly 15.6 billion gallons in 2017 to between 12.1 billion and 12.6 billion gallons in 2030, a 19 percent to 22 percent reduction. This decline comes in response to both increasing vehicle electrification and higher fuel economy for new gasoline vehicles (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020). c. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction Energy Demand
During construction of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases, including proposed sewer line upsizing, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. The project would require demolition; site preparation and grading, including hauling material off-site; pavement and asphalt installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping.

The total consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel during project construction was estimated using the assumptions and factors from CalEEMod (Appendix B). Table 8 presents the estimated construction energy consumption, indicating construction equipment, hauling and vendor trips, and worker trips would consume approximately 69,537 gallons of gasoline and 372,116 gallons of diesel fuel over Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

52 Table 8 Estimated Fuel Consumption During Construction Phase Gallons of Gasoline Gallons of Diesel Combined MMBtu Phase 1 9,448 63,751 9,162
Phase 2 7,945 66,634 8,706
Phase 3 1,971 45,334 5,994
Phase 4 1,015 16,145 2,172
Phase 5 3,708 27,068 3,857
Phase 6 26,572 77,704 12,821
Phase 7 18,878 75,480 11,692
Total 69,537 372,116 54,404
Source: Appendix B
The construction energy estimates are conservative because the equipment used in each phase of construction was assumed to be operating every day. In reality, not all equipment would be used on every construction day. Construction at the project site would be temporary and typical of similar projects. Construction equipment would be maintained to all applicable standards, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use would be temporary and typical for construction sites. It is also reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, which would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068), which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption. Therefore, neither the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project nor future development under the remaining project phases would involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the construction-phase impact related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Demand
Project operation would increase energy demand in the form of gasoline consumption, electricity, and natural gas. Increased gasoline consumption would be associated with new trips to and from the site. The estimated of number of daily trips that would be generated by the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases (Appendix B) is used to calculate operational gasoline consumption. Table 9 shows the estimated total annual fuel consumption of the project using the estimated VMT and the assumed vehicle fleet mix (Appendix B).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Table 9 Estimated Project Annual Transportation Energy Consumption Source Energy Consumption1
Gasoline 972,862 gallons 106,807 MMBtu
Diesel 148,332 gallons 18,906 MMBtu
Electricity 235,539 kWh 804 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 10,571 MMBtu 10,571 MMBtu
Total Project Energy Consumption 137,088 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; kWh = kilowatt hours 1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source. 2 The estimated number of average daily trips associated with the project is used to determine the energy consumption associated with fuel use from operation of the project. According to CalEEMod calculations (see Appendix B) the project would result in app roximately 21,790,093 annual VMT.

See Appendix C for transportation energy calculation sheets and Appendix B for CalEEMod output results for electricity and natural gas usage.

In addition to fuel consumption, operation of future development at the site would consume approximately 3.65 GWh of electricity per year, or less than one percent of total electricity use in Monterey County in 2020 (CEC 2020a). The proposed hotel would require approximately 500 MWh of electricity per year and approximately 3,074 MMBtu of natural gas per year, and estimated natural gas consumption for full buildout of project would be approximately 10,570 MMBtu per year, or less than one percent of total natural gas use in Monterey County in 2020 (CEC 2020b).

Operationally, upsizing the sewer line would not require additional electricity.

Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with all standards set in California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires the use of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials in the design of new construction projects.

Furthermore, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the Energy Commission. As the name implies, these standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The standards are updated every three years and each iteration is more energy efficient than the previous standards. For example, according to the CEC, nonresidential buildings built with the 2019 standards will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018b). The project would be required to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards or the latest iteration in effect at the time of project construction. Furthermore, the project would further reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the electricity generated by renewable resources provided by 3CE and PG&E continues to increase to comply with state requirements through SB 100, which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Furthermore, development under future phases of the project would facilitate increased housing density in Salinas, near existing office and commercial uses, which would facilitate the use of transit and alternative transportation modes such as walking and biking. As described in Section 17, Transportation, the site is near bus route 23 with multiple stops along the project site frontage on Abbott Street. As a result, the use of alternate modes of transportation would be encouraged by the City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

54 project through greater accessibility to destinations and transit. This would minimize the potential of the project to result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels.

As noted above, future development facilitated by the project would demand less than one percent of existing total electricity and natural gas use in the County; would be required to comply with all standards set in CBC Title 24, California’s Green Building Standards Code, and the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and would be located in proximity to existing alternative transportation modes, reducing vehicle fuel consumption. Therefore, project operation would not result in wasteful or unnecessary energy consumption.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SB 100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045. Because the project would be powered by the existing electricity grid, the project would eventually be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this regulation. The project would be required to comply with California’s Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which contain energy efficiency requirements. The City of Salinas does not have an adopted plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the City’s Conservation/Open Space Element in the General Plan contains policies which seek to encourage energy conservation. Table 10 includes a consistency analysis of energy policies that are applicable to the proposed project.

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

Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy COS-8.1.

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

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

Consistent. The project would facilitate the construction of up to 240,800 square feet of residential space and 160,300 square feet of commercial space on the project site, which is currently developed with commercial and light industrial uses. The demolition of neighborhood services would not occur as part of the project. Neighborhood-level services in the vicinity of the sites include Seven Eleven (Abbott Street), Chester Dental Lab (Abbott Street), and La Mexicana Market (John Street). The mixed -use nature of the project and its proximity to existing neighborhood- level services would reduce reliance on automobile energy consumption, as some services would be provided on the site, in addition to nearby commercial services walkable from the site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy COS-8.6.

As shown in Table 10, the project would not conflict with the applicable policies in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

56 7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

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

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
□ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
□ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
□ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
□ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□ □ ■ □
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project , and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Based on fault maps from the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the project site is not located in or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (DOC 2021), and there are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 13 miles northeast of the project site. Thus, the likelihood of surface rupture occurring from active faulting at the project site is remote.

While no faults have been mapped within the city of Salinas itself, the city and surrounding areas could still experience damage from strong seismic shaking. The project site is in a zone of very high seismic hazards (Salinas 2002b).

The proposed four-story hotel and future development would be required to meet the current CBC seismic-resistance standards that ensure new structures are engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration at any given location. Additionally, compliance with Section 31-401.4(d) of the SMC would require the preparation of a preliminary engineering geology and/or seismic safety report that would investigate potential geologic and seismic hazards and would include specific mitigation measures if the presence of any hazards are found (Salinas 2021a). Compliance with all applicable provisions of State and local construction and designs standards and Section 31-401.4(d) of the SMC and implementation of the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed hotel and future development would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death due to strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction is a condition that occurs when unconsolidated, saturated soils change to a near-liquid state during ground shaking. The city primarily experiences earthquake hazards in the form of liquefaction, due to recently deposited sands and silts in areas of high groundwater levels (Salinas 2002b). The liquefaction susceptibility of the Phase 1 portion of the project site is mapped as moderate and is bordered to the east by an area mapped as high liquefaction susceptibility, and the liquefaction susceptibility of the portions of the project site envisioned for Phases 2 through 7 are mostly mapped as moderate, with portions of the Phase 5 and 6 areas mapped as high liquefaction susceptibility (County of Monterey 2020). In addition, the surrounding area consists of high, moderate, and low zones of liquefaction susceptibility (County of Monterey 2020). The preliminary geotechnical report would investigate geologic and seismic hazards, including those related to liquefaction, and provide recommendations that the project proponent would be required to comply with. Additionally, the CBC includes specific requirements to address liquefaction hazards.

The proposed hotel and future development would conform to the CBC as required by law.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

58 Compliance with the CBC and Section 31-401.4(d) of the SMC would result in less than significant impacts related to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction.

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project site is currently developed, and portions of the project site proposed for Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 contain a small portion of landscaped area. The site is generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. However, construction activities associated with development of the proposed four-story hotel proposed and future development could result in erosion or loss of topsoil.

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

Ground-disturbing activities that would occur with implementation of the proposed hotel and future development would include site-specific grading for foundations, ground-level parking, and building pads. The proposed four-story hotel would involve cutting approximately 3,900 CY of earth and filling with 8,700 CY, for a net fill of 4,800 CY and future development would involve cutting approximately 6,400 CY of earth and filling with 9,800 CY, for a net fill of 3,400 CY. Therefore, temporary erosion could occur during project construction. However, the proposed hotel and future development 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’s Standards to Control Excavations, Cuts, Fills, Clearing, Grading, Erosion and Sediments. All projects requiring a grading permit are required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for control of erosion and stormwater runoff quality during construction. These standards provide direction concerning erosion control, including keeping debris and dirt out of the city’s storm drain system during construction, requiring submittal of a SWPPP, and requiring low impact development strategies or structural treatment control best management practices (BMPs).

Since the proposed hotel, future on-site development, and future off-site improvements (sewer line upsizing) would disturb more than one acre of land, the project proponent would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, describes how coverage under the NPDES Permit would require implementation of a SWPPP and various BMPs to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during project construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit, identified BMPs, and appropriate sections of the SMC would ensure impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils have the potential to cause damage to structures through soil movement as the soil changes volume in response to changes in the water content. The project site is underlain by Salinas clay loam soil, which is moderately expansive as it has a moderate shrink-swell potential, and Cropley silty clay, which is moderately to highly expansive as it has a moderate to high shrink-swell potential (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRSC] 2019). Areas proposed for Phases 1 through 5 and Phase 7 are mapped as Salinas clay loam soil. In addition, the northeastern portion of the proposed Phase 6 area is mapped as moderately expansive Cropley silty clay and the southeastern portion is mapped as highly expansive Cropley silty clay (NRCS 2019). The remaining portions of Phase 6 are mapped as Salinas clay loam soil.

Since the project site is located on moderate to highly expansive soils, there is the potential for structural damage to occur to the proposed hotel and future development. Section 31-402.5(b) of the SMC requires a soils report for all development projects that investigates soil expansion potential and proposes mitigation for critically expansive soils (Salinas 2021a). Construction of the proposed four-story hotel and future development would be required comply with the CBC, including structural and foundation design requirements such as those pertaining to soil/fill suitability, retaining wall and foundation design, and structural setbacks, and the SMC, as applicable, which would ensure construction on potentially expansive soils is designed to withstand potential soil movement. Therefore, potential impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed four-story hotel and development of future phases would connect to the local wastewater treatment system and would not require the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The paleontological sensitivities of the geologic units underlying the project site were evaluated based on an online paleontological locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within geologic units mapped within the project site. Fossil collections records from the Paleobiology Database and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database were reviewed for known fossil localities in Monterey County (Paleobiology Database 2020; UCMP 2020). Based on the available information contained within existing scientific literature and the UCMP database, paleontological sensitivities consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) were assigned to the geologic units underlying the project site. The
The project site is situated within the Salinas Valley in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, one of eleven major provinces in the California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Salinas Valley is bounded by the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountain ranges to the east and west, respectively (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb 1990). The project site is entirely mapped at City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

60 the surface by a single geologic unit: Quaternary young (middle to late Holocene) alluvium (Qa), which generally consists of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated alluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay of valley areas and floodplains (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

Although not mapped within the project boundaries, exposures of Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium (Qoa) are prevalent throughout the Salinas Valley (Dibblee and Minch 2007). The nearest exposure of Quaternary old alluvium is mapped approximately 0.3 mile east of the project site. Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvium consists of dissected, weakly to moderately indurated alluvial gravel, sand, and clay (Dibblee and Minch 2007).

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

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

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

The project’s grading and excavation phase would involve cutting approximately 10,300 CY of earth and filling with 18,500 CY, for a net fill of 8,200 CY. Ground disturbance to intact (native) geologic units within the project site mapped as Quaternary young alluvium (Qa) has the potential to impact paleontological resources at depths greater than five feet. Construction of the proposed four-story hotel and future development under the remaining project phases would require excavation up to depths of four feet. Therefore, ground-disturbing construction activities at the project site would not result in the destruction, damage, or loss of undiscovered, scientifically important paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

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

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years).

Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO 2) is used to relate the
amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).

The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO 2 was emitted. It is likely
that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

62 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural Resource Agency 2018).

Most projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change.

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

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project analysis can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in their white paper, Best Practices in Implementing Climate Action Plans, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (AEP 2018). To date, neither the City of Salinas nor Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD) has adopted a qualified Climate Action Plan to address significance.

In the absence of any adopted numeric threshold, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The City of Salinas has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions and has not formally adopted a local plan for reduction GHG emissions. Neither has the MBARD, the California Office of Planning and Research, California Air Resource Board (CARB), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), or any other state or applicable regional agency has adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project.

Therefore, the significance of the project’s potential impacts regarding GHG emissions and climate change are evaluated solely on consistency with plans and polices adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. The most directly applicable adopted regulatory plans to reduce GHG emissions are the 2017 Scoping Plan, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS), and City of Salinas’ General Plan.

GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the project are provided for informational purposes.

Methodology
GHG emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, as described in Section 3, Air Quality.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions. This analysis considers the combined impact of GHG emissions from both construction and operation.

Calculations of CO
2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects.

Construction of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases, including required sewer line upsizing, would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the use of heavy construction equipment on-site, vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site, and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export. Total construction emissions would be 3,906 metric ton (MT) CO2e. Amortized over a 30- year period per industry standard, construction-related GHG emissions would be equivalent to 130 MT CO2e per year.

Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. As shown in Table 11 annual operational emissions generated by the proposed project, combined with amortized construction emissions, would total approximately 8,385 MT CO
2e per year at buildout.

The City of Salinas is in the process of completing a Climate Action Plan, which will influence development within the City, including future phases of this project. In addition, the future phases of this project will be subject to updated Title 24 requirements as well as new state laws and programs adopted to achieve the 2045 State goal of net zero emissions. Compliance with current plans and programs identified to reduce GHG emissions, as detailed under threshold (b) below.

Table 11 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Construction 130
Operational
Area 4
Energy 952
Mobile 6,593
Solid Waste 315
Water 391
Total Emissions 8,385
Notes: MT = metric tons, CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix B for modeling results.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

64 b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the north central coast California region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) 2045 MTP/SCS, and local policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project’s consistency with these plans is discussed in the following subsections. 2017 Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. According to CARB, California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target in 2016.

The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals include reducing fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The project would be required to be solar-ready or include the installation of photovoltaic systems on all low-rise residential buildings, equal to the expected electricity usage, in accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The project would meet the requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code. All proposed residences would be equipped with Energy Star appliances, WaterSense fixtures, and high-performance ventilation systems. The project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan’s goal of increasing renewable energy in the state, and energy efficiency efforts to reduce GHG emissions to meet the State’s climate goals. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.

While the 2022 Scoping plan is currently in draft form and out for public review, it has yet to be adopted and therefore compliance with the scoping plan is based on compliance with the current adopted 2017 Scoping Plan as discussed above.

Consistency with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 2045

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

The 2045 MTP/SCS is reflective of legislation SB 375 described in Section 4.5.2 above, to focus land use development around high-quality transit corridors as a means to reduce passenger vehicle GHG emissions. Table 12 below describes the project’s consistency with applicable goals of the 2045MTP/SCS.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Table 12 Project Consistency with the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS Policy Consistency
Access and Mobility. Provide convenient,
accessible, and reliable travel options
while maximizing productivity for all
people and goods in the region.

Consistent. The project would include interior roadways and sidewalks to provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to residences. Internal roads would connect the project to the Abbott Street to the south and John Street to the west.

The City of Salinas is part of the Monterey -Salinas Transit system. The Northridge-Williams Ranch line runs directly past the project site with an existing bus stop (Abbott/Maple stop) directly adjacent to the project site on Abbot Street, and a second existing stop (Abbot/John stop) located just south of the intersection of Abbot Street and John Street on the west side of Abbot Street. This provides di rect access to the Salinas Transit Center which has Amtrak train services, Greyhound bus services, and the Monterey -Salinas Transit bus services. Both Amtrak and Greyhound have routes that travel across the California and the United States. The Monterey -Salinas Transit system has bus routes from Watsonville to King City. Therefore, the project would have accessible and reliable travel options and be designed to reduce reliance on solo vehicle trips, and the project would be consistent with this policy.

Environment. Promote environmental
sustainability and protect the natural
environment.

Consistent. The project would include several sustainable design features, including those required by Title 24 and CalGreen standards. The project would include solar ready or PV systems would be installed on each building.

All proposed residences would be equipped with Energy Star appliances, WaterSense fixtures, and high-performance ventilation systems. The project would meet the requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Land Use & Housing. Investment in safe
bicycle and pedestrian routes that
improve connectivity and access to
common destinations, such as
connections between residential areas
and schools, employment centers,
neighborhood shopping, and transit stops
and st ations, supporting efforts
throughout the region to improve
connectivity and realize public health
benefits from these investments.

Consistent. The project would include interior roadways and sidewalks to provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to proposed residences.

Internal roads would connect the project to the Abbot Street to the south and John Street to the west. Therefore, the project would provide connectivity with planned neighboring residential developments, and would be consistent with this policy.

Source: AMBAG 2022
Consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan
While the City of Salinas General Plan does not contain specific GHG reduction policies, it does contain policies that encourage higher density development, energy efficiency, and multimodal transportation, that would reduce GHG emissions from new development. Table 13 summarizes the project’s consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan goals and policies indirectly related to GHG emissions.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

66 Table 13 Project Consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan Policy Consistency
Policy H -1.8: Encourage the development of higher
density apartments, townhouses and condominiums
served by major transit corridors or other non -
automotive transport.

Consistent. The project would involve locating high density housing c lose to the existing bus stops of Abbot/John and Abbot/Maple, which are adjace nt and directly across Abbot Street from the project site. This provides direct access to the Salinas Transit Center which has Amtrak train services, Greyhound bus services, and the Monterey -Salinas Transit bus services. Both Amtrak and Greyhound have rout es that travel across the California and the United States. The Monterey-Salinas Transit system has bus routes from
Watsonville to King City. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy H-1.8.

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

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

Consistent. The project would encourage the use of existing nearby public transit and would promote the use of
alternative modes of transportation, due to the proximity to the Abbot/John and Abbot/Maple which provides direct
access to the Salinas Transit Center . Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy CD-3.8 and COS-8.5.

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

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

Consistent. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, which promote energy conservation in new buildings. Therefore, the project would comply with Policy COS-8.1 and COS-8.2.

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
□ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
□ ■ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school?
□ ■ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
□ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
□ □ ■ □
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
□ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
□ □ ■ □
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

68 Analysis in this section is based on a Hazardous Materials Technical Study prepared by Rincon in May 2022 and included as Appendix D to this document. Appendix D summarizes Rincon’s review of six environmental documents, including one Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), two Phase II ESAs, and three other case documents, available online at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker website. While areas of the site have been previously studied, the entire site is not covered by these prior investigations, and no investigation has been done on development Lots 4, 5 and 6.

According to a review of online aerial photographs and topographic maps, the project site was developed with industrial buildings from at least 1948 to present day. Eight railroad spurs were formerly located on the project site from at least 1910 to 1998, and two sets of railroad tracks have been located adjacent to the east of the project site from at least 1910 to present day. a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Demolition and Construction
The proposed project would require demolition of Building 1 during Phase 1 of the project for construction of the proposed four-story hotel and Building 2 during Phase 6 of the project for construction of future development. Existing buildings on site may contain asbestos and/or lead- based paint (LBP) due to their age. Structures built before the 1970s were typically constructed with asbestos-containing materials (ACM). In addition, since many of the existing buildings were constructed before the time of the federal ban on the manufacture of PCBs, it is possible that light ballasts in the structures contain PCBs. Demolition of the existing structures could therefore result in health hazard impacts to workers if not remediated prior to construction activities. However, demolition and construction activities would be required to adhere to MBARD Rule 424, which governs the proper handling and disposal of ACM for demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities, and Cal/OSHA regulations regarding lead-based materials. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not exceed Cal/OSHA standards. DTSC has classified PCBs as a hazardous waste when concentrations exceed 50 parts per million in non-liquids, and the DTSC requires that materials containing those concentrations of PCBs be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste. Light ballasts to be removed would be evaluated for the presence of PCBs and managed appropriately. With required adherence to MBARD, Cal/OSHA, and DTSC regulations regarding ACM, LBP, and PCBs, demolition activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release or the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Normal operating amounts of construction fluids (e.g., diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.) would be on-site during project construction. During construction of the four-story hotel proposed under Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases, accidental conditions could occur as a result of any of the following, which may occur during ground disturbance and earthmoving phases of construction: direct dermal contact with hazardous materials, incidental ingestion of hazardous materials, or inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials. The transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. Limited quantities of hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, and oils would be used to fuel and maintain vehicles and motorized equipment.

Appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported, stored, or used in Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

connection with specific project-site activities would be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations codified in the CCR. Transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the proposed project would be conducted pursuant to all applicable local, state, and federal laws, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by CCR Title 13, which describes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, and in cooperation with the County’s Department of Environmental Health. Adherence to existing hazardous materials regulations would provide compliance with existing safety standards related to the handling, use and storage of hazardous materials, and compliance with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Because construction of the proposed project, including upsizing of the sewer line, would disturb more than one acre of land, implementation of a SWPPP would be required pursuant to state regulations (see Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality). In addition to measures to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation, the SWPPP would also include measures to implement in the event of accidental spills during construction, such as mandatory spill clean-up kits in equipment, as a possible example. Given that spill clean-up measures would be implemented, and that only normal operating amounts of construction fluids (e.g., diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.) would be on-site during construction, the operation of construction equipment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Operation
Potential hazardous materials, such as fuels/oils, paint products, lubricants, solvents, cleaning products, and pesticides/herbicides may be used and/or stored on-site during operation of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would likely involve an incremental increase in the use of common household and commercial hazardous materials, such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular property and landscaping maintenance. Transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be conducted pursuant to all applicable local, state, and federal laws, including Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by CCR Title 13. As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 25507, a business shall establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. As required, the hazardous materials would be stored in locations according to compatibility and in storage enclosures (i.e., flammable material storage cabinets and biological safety cabinets) or in areas or rooms specially designed, protected, and contained for such storage, in accordance with applicable regulations.

Under the California Hazard Communication Regulation, chemical manufacturers, distributors, or importers must provide Safety Data Sheets (formerly Material Safety Data Sheets) for each hazardous chemical to downstream users to communicate information on these hazards. Businesses are also required to train employees on protocols in the event of a chemical spill or a leak from a sealed container (California Department of Industrial Relations 2020).As discussed under criterion (d), the project site includes residual soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination and there are several listings for off-site facilities within proximity of the project site, including small-quantity hazardous waste generators, registered and historical underground storage tanks and aboveground storage tanks. Due to the contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater on site as well as the proximity of off-site hazardous facilities to the project site, there is a possibility that contaminated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater could be encountered beneath the project site, which could City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

70 potentially migrate into the proposed hotel building or future development and potentially expose future employees, visitors, and residents.

Adherence to Monterey County Hazardous Materials Management Services’ (HMMS) programs and regulations would reduce the potential for contamination from hazardous materials through proper cleanup, disposal, and remediation. The Monterey County HMMS regulates and enforces the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code relating to hazardous materials, including the use and storage of hazardous materials that are ignitable, reactive, corrosive, or toxic. Businesses using such materials are subject to permitting and inspection (Monterey County 2021). Therefore, impacts due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions during operation of the project would be less than significant.

However, due to the limited quantities of these materials to be used by the project, they are not considered hazardous to the public at large. Impacts associated with construction and/or operation of the project would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Hazards Due to Known On-Site Contamination
Based on the results of the Phase II ESAs conducted at the project site, there are known metals, TPHs (gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), VOCs, SVOCs, and OCPs in on-site soil and/or soil vapor. These impacts will likely be encountered during grading and construction-related work on-site. Benzene, naphthalene, perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE) were detected in soil vapor at the project site at concentrations exceeding the residential and/or commercial/industrial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel (TPH-d) was detected in soil at the project site at a concentration exceeding the residential ESL. Additionally, a concrete trench is present in the southeastern portion of the project site and railroad spurs were formerly located on the project site from at least 1910 to 1998. Stained concrete flooring was also observed within and/or next to on-site buildings which could be encountered during ground disturbance and earthmoving phases of project construction, such as grading. Therefore, there is a potential for construction workers, off-site receptors, and future building occupants to be exposed to contaminants via dust, soil, and/or soil vapor on the project site. Additionally, if off-site disposal of soils would occur during project construction, the soil may require special handling or disposal as a waste. Construction activities at the project site and excavation for off-site sewer upsizing are not expected to encounter groundwater, which is anticipated to be approximately 60 to 70 feet below ground surface.

Consequently, potentially significant impacts exist at this known release site (similar to a hazardous material site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5) and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during grading/construction.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 during project construction would reduce potential hazardous material impacts to less than significant by providing additional investigation and remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and the health of future workers, off-site receptors, and building occupants.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

Active Railway Hazards
The Union Pacific Railroad tracks adjacent to the project site support both passenger and freight traffic. Freight trains may carry hazardous materials, which could be released during an accident.

The public health risk posed by an accidental release would depend upon the materials involved, their toxicity, and the wind direction that could carry emissions from the release. The possibility of impact is determined by a combination of the probability of an accident, the probability that the released cargo is hazardous, and the probability that winds are blowing from the spill toward occupied receptor sites.

Of the infrequent daytime freight traffic, only a percentage would involve transport of hazardous materials, and that transport is regulated by the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to minimize risks of accidents or spills. For example, train cars often carry inert materials, such as lumber or steel. In addition, because of the urban context in the site vicinity, trains travel through the area at relatively low speeds, further minimizing the likelihood of accidents.

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed that CEQA is primarily concerned with the impacts of a proposed project on the environment, not the effects of the environment on the proposed project. The proposed project would not involve changes to the tracks or easement and would not modify or expand access to the tracks. Therefore, construction and/or operation of the project would not exacerbate railway hazards, and such hazards would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 RWQCB Regulatory Agency Submittal
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional (EP), as defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-1527, to prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with standard ASTM methodologies to assess the project site (including development Lots 4, 5, and 6). The project applicant shall submit the Phase I ESA to the Central Coast RWQCB project manager of the open Cleanup Program Site case. Additionally, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the Central Coast RWQCB Cleanup project manager:
 Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan for Lots 1-9  All environmental documents completed for the project (Lots 1-9), including this HMTS  All future environmental documents completed for the project (Lots 1-9) Upon submittal of the information above, the Central Coast RWQCB may require actions such as:
development of subsurface investigation workplans; completion of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater subsurface investigations; installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells; soil excavation and offsite disposal; completion of human health risk assessments; and/or completion of remediation reports or case closure documents. Subsurface soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations, if required, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the Central Coast RWQCB.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

72 The Central Coast RWQCB closure and agency approval documents shall be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to issuance of grading permits.

It should also be noted that the Central Coast RWQCB may determine that Monterey County HMMS or the DTSC may be best suited to perform the cleanup oversight agency duties for the assessment and/or remediation of this project. Should the cleanup oversight agency be transferred from the RWQCB to the Monterey County HMMS or the DTSC, this and other mitigation measures will still apply.

HAZ-2 Subsurface Investigation
The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to prepare subsurface investigations, as required by the Central Coast RWQCB, prior to construction. The subsurface investigations may include sampling of the following suspect release areas:
 Stained asphalt and concrete flooring
 Drainage trench with unlined effluent ponds and discolored fluids  Onsite hazardous materials storage and abandoned unidentified wastes  Onsite ASTs (waste oil and ammonia)
 Former onsite USTs
 Former onsite auto repair, machine shop, and gasoline station  Former (potentially remaining onsite) railroad tracks and spurs  Former oil storage warehouse
Additionally, these subsurface investigations may include, but are not limited to, completion of:
 Geophysical surveys
 Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater sampling assessments  Laboratory analysis for TPH, VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, and metals The subsurface investigations shall provide recommendations to address identified hazards and indicate when to apply those recommended actions in relation to proposed project activities. As part of the subsurface investigation, analytical results shall be screened against the Central Coast RWQCB environmental screening levels (ESLs). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios.

Appropriate steps shall be undertaken to protect site workers during project construction and if necessary, the public during project operation. This would include the preparation of a Soil and Soil Vapor Management Plan (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-3).

If contaminants are detected at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (CCR Title 22, Section 66261.24), appropriate steps shall be undertaken to protect site workers during project construction and if necessary, the public during project operation (see Mitigation Measures HAZ-3, HAZ-4, and HAZ-5).

HAZ-3 Soil and Soil Vapor Management Plan
The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to prepare a Soil and Soil Vapor Management Plan (SSVMP) prior to construction. Where groundwater impacts are Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

identified during implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, a groundwater management section shall be added to the SSVMP. The SSVMP, or equivalent document, shall be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils, soil vapor, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the offsite migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
 Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

Prior to demolition and grading (construction), the City shall confirm the Central Coast RWQCB’s approval of the SSVMP. The project applicant shall review and implement the SSVMP prior to demolition and grading (construction).

If odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, or debris are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted and a qualified environmental consultant shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the situation. Work may continue on other parts of the project while impacted soil investigation and/or remediation takes place.

HAZ-4 Remediation
Where soil is known to be impacted, or is identified during implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 (subsurface investigation) to be present, within the construction envelope at chemical concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (CCR Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant shall utilize the development site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant shall provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The City shall confirm the Central Coast RWQCB’s approval of the development site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

74 engineering controls, prior to construction. The project applicant shall review and implement the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and implement the remedial engineering controls prior to construction.

HAZ-5 Vapor Mitigation System
Where soil vapor is known (or is identified during implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2, HAZ-3, or HAZ-4) to be present at chemical concentrations exceeding the ESLs for sub-slab/soil gas (vapor) intrusion, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) or other qualified person to prepare a vapor mitigation system design for the proposed project.

The plan shall include, but is not limited to:
 Design specifications
 Material specifications
 Installation requirements
 Monitoring requirements
The project applicant shall design and implement engineering measures or institutional controls (e.g., soil vapor barrier) to prevent potential soil vapor intrusion into new residences or businesses in accordance with the measures included in the DTSC’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document – Final (October 2011) and Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, Revision 1 (October 2011).

Engineering measures or institutional controls shall be submitted to the City’s Permit Services Division and Current Planning Division prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. Said engineering measures and institutional controls shall be peer reviewed by a qualified third-party contractor hired by the City at the project applicant’s expense to confirm such measures and controls comply with applicable regulations. Consultation with the DTSC or a local cleanup agency may be required to confirm the appropriateness of the measures and controls.

The project applicant and/or contractor shall retain a qualified professional to certify that the accepted measures and controls are properly constructed and functioning at each residence.

Written verification shall be submitted to the City.

The efficacy of the measures and controls shall be confirmed and certified by a qualified professional pursuant to the construction quality assurance/quality control testing guidance of the DTSC’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document – Final (October 2011).

The project applicant and contractor shall incorporate a sub-slab vapor barrier during construction, the implementation of which would prevent the potential for soil gas VOCs from migrating to indoor air.

The City shall confirm the Central Coast RWQCB’s approval of the Vapor Mitigation System Design prior to construction. The project applicant shall review the Vapor Mitigation System Design and install the system during construction.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is approximately 0.16 mile east of Lincoln Elementary School at 705 California Street. Hazardous materials used during construction of the project would be disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the California Building and Fire Codes, as well as regulations of the federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations. However, as discussed under criterion (b), there is the potential for off-site receptors to be exposed to contaminants via dust, soil, and/or soil vapor on the project site during grading and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level by providing additional investigation and remedial measures and/or soil management practices. Implementation of these measures would assist with protecting the health of nearby school occupants. In addition, potential uses of hazardous materials during project operation would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and limited to the physical boundaries of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not currently listed as a hazardous material site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, a portion of the project site is an open RWQCB Cleanup Program Site (case #T10000016190) as of September 2020 and residual soil, soil vapor, and groundwater impacts are present onsite. Additionally, the project site was listed on several environmental databases, which indicate that former occupants of the project site used and stored hazardous materials, generated hazardous waste, and were associated with a closed-in-placed fuel underground storage tank. There are several listings for off-site facilities within the applicable search radii. These listings (i.e., small-quantity hazardous waste generators, registered and historical underground storage tanks and aboveground storage tanks) are not indicative of a contamination concern with respect to the project site. Therefore, operation and construction of the project could create a public health and environmental hazard at the proposed project. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 would reduce construction and operational hazardous material impacts to less than significant by providing additional investigation and remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and the health of future workers, off-site receptors, and building occupants. As the site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport’s noise impacts. Typically, significant impacts will occur over noise- sensitive areas in the 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour, based upon the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Integrated Noise Model, which describes aircraft noise in either the Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) or the CNEL. DNL accounts for the increased City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

76 sensitivity to noise at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and is the metric preferred by the FAA. The DNL represents the total accumulation of all sound energy but spread out uniformly over a 24-hour period.

The nearest airport to the project site is Salinas Municipal Airport (SNS), located approximately 1.3 mile to the southeast. According to the Airport Land Use Plan for the SNS, the project site is located outside the ultimate 65 CNEL noise exposure contour for the airport (Salinas Community Development Department 1982). Therefore, the project site is not located in an area with noise over 65 CNEL and would not expose employees or visitors to excessive noise.

A majority of the areas proposed for Phases 2 through 7 are within the City’s AR Overlay District and Airport Influence Area, with a small portion of Phases 5 and 6 located outside the Airport Influence Area (Salinas 2002b). The purpose of the AR Overlay District is to fulfill the City's obligations, in accordance with requirements of state law (Government Code Section 65302.3), to implement the airport land use compatibility policies adopted by the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission; regulate land use development within the vicinity of Salinas Municipal Airport to protect it from potential encroachment by land uses which are incompatible with airport activities and which may impair the future development and use of the airport; and minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards that would result from incompatible land use development within areas around airport (Salinas 2021a).

The proposed four-story hotel and future development would comply with Chapter 4, Airport, of the SMC which provides requirements and development regulations, including building height limitations, and SMC Section 37-40.450 which requires the dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of approval (Salinas 2021a). Therefore, impacts related to airport safety would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed above under criteria (b) and (d), there are known metals, TPHs, VOCs, SVOCs, and OCPs in soil and/or soil vapor as well as residual groundwater contamination on the project site that could be encountered by construction workers and off-site receptors during grading and construction- related work as well as by future project employees, visitors, and residents during project operation.

The proposed four-story hotel under Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases, including off-site sewer line upsizing, would be required to comply with applicable Salinas codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the Salinas Fire and Police Departments.

Salinas implements the Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan which serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan and the Emergency Resource Management Plan. The Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, terrorist activities, and war-related operations, as well as the evacuation and movement of people in the event of an emergency (Salinas 2002b).

No roads would be permanently closed as a result of the construction or operation of the proposed project, and no structures would be developed that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would be accessed from John and Abbott Streets, which would provide sufficient Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

capacity for passenger vehicles and light- and heavy-duty trucks that would frequent the project site during construction and operation. The proposed project would be developed in accordance with applicable geotechnical, hazardous materials, transportation, and fire safety standards.

If temporary lane closures (potentially on John and Abbott Streets) during construction of the proposed hotel or future development, including proposed sewer line upsizing, occur, construction activities would avoid interference with an emergency plan through the use of traffic control measures to maintain traffic flow and access and/or road detours. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the use of traffic control measures to avoid interference with an emergency plan, potential impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. As such, operation of the proposed project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area.

Furthermore, new development is required to help provide fire and police protection facilities necessary to provide adequate response times through the collection of development fees. A building permit application for the proposed hotel and future development would be reviewed by the Department of Public Works and the Salinas Fire and Police Departments for potential problems with emergency access within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in buildings that would block emergency response or evacuation routes or interfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Salinas and is surrounded by existing urban development. The proposed project would not be located in or near a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) recommended Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or State Responsibility Area (SRA) (CAL FIRE 2021). The nearest VHFHSZ occurs approximately five miles south of the site. Site access for the proposed project would be provided via John and Abbott Streets. The proposed hotel and future development would be designed, constructed, and operated pursuant to applicable standards outlined in the 2019 California Fire Code, as amended by Salinas and adopted in Section 13-8 of the SMC. Such requirements include building and emergency access, adequate emergency notification, and means of egress for emergency vehicles. In addition, the proposed hotel and future development would not be situated near slopes or create slopes, and would adhere to applicable standards outlined in the 2019 California Fire Code, as amended by Salinas to increase prevention and protection efforts due to impacts from winds and other conditions that may increase the propensity and intensity of wildfires.

While construction of the proposed hotel and future development may require temporary lane closures near John and Abbott Streets, truck and equipment access, and parking on the project site, construction would not permanently or temporarily impair emergency response or evacuation.

The proposed project would not create a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires, and this impact would be less than significant. For more discussion of potential impacts related to wildfire, please refer to Section 20, Wildfire.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

78 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
□ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
□ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
□ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
□ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
□ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
□ □ ■ □
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

80 The federal Clean Water Act establishes the framework for regulating discharges to Waters of the United States to protect their beneficial uses. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act regulates water quality within California and establishes the authority of the SWRCB and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB requires construction projects t o provide careful management and close monitoring of runoff during construction, including on-site erosion protection, sediment management, and prevention of non -storm discharges. The SWRCB and RWQCBs issue NPDES permits to regulate specific discharges. Th e NPDES Construction General Permit regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites that disturb more than one acre of land.

The project site overlies the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB), which extends from north of Marina and Salinas to the Monterey County/San Luis Obispo County line throughout the Salinas Valley. The project site is within the 180-400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin of the SVGB (Salinas Valley Groundwater 2016), which covers 89,700 acres (140 square miles) of the SVGB. Groundwater is primarily recharged naturally through infiltration of surface water, deep percolation of excess irrigation water, and deep percolation of infiltrating precipitation. Recharge of the aquifer is limited due to the permeability of the Salinas Valley Aquitard, and there are no mapped springs, seeps, or discharge to streams identified in the Subbasin (Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency [SVBGSA] 2020).

Water for the proposed project would be provided by Cal-Water. The Cal-Water Salinas District relies entirely on groundwater, with wells that extract water from five different groundwater basins, including the Corralitos-Pajaro Valley Subbasin, Salinas Valley-Langley Area Subbasin, Salinas Valley- 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, Salinas Valley-East Side Aquifer Subbasin, and Salinas Valley- Monterey Subbasin. Cal-Water has prepared a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Salinas District pursuant to the California Urban Water Management Planning Act which provides an assessment of the reliability of its water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Development of the proposed four-story hotel and future development would introduce heavy equipment to the site during construction and increase traffic to and from the site during operation.

This increase in heavy construction equipment and operational traffic could result in an increase in fuel, oil, and lubricants in the stormwater runoff due to leaks or accidental releases. Construction activities resulting in ground disturbance of one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which must be prepared before construction begins. The SWPPP includes specifications for BMPs implemented during construction to minimize or prevent sediment or pollutants in stormwater runoff.

Construction of the proposed hotel and future development, including off-site sewer line improvmenets, would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. In addition, the project proponent would be required to implement BMPs identified in the SWPPP to prevent construction pollution via stormwater and minimize erosion and sedimentation into waterways as a result of construction. In addition, the proposed hotel and future development would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. The proposed hotel Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

would include an underground storm water chamber and tree box filters in the northern portion of the Phase 1 area and introduce landscaped areas, and future development would include underground storm water chambers, tree box filters, and bioretention planter areas and would introduce landscaped areas to a site that is mostly impermeable (covered with paving and structures as well as a small areas of landscaping and exposed ground surface) currently. The proposed hotel and future development would include additional on-site stormwater capture, retention and treatment compared to existing conditions. This would reduce the potential for polluted stormwater to enter the storm drain system. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit would ensure that development of the proposed hotel and future development would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Currently, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces (paving and structures) that cover the majority of the site. Water supply to the proposed project would be sourced from the local groundwater aquifer. The groundwater basin currently has issues with lowered groundwater elevations, seawater intrusion, and groundwater contamination.

As discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed four-story hotel would have an estimated water demand of 9.4 acre-feet per year (AFY) and future development would increase water demand by approximately 171 AFY at full buildout. The project’s water demands would be served by California Water Service-Salinas District (Cal-Water). Cal-Water utilizes groundwater, with wells extracting from five groundwater basins: Corralitos-Pajaro Valley, Salinas Valley-Langley Area, Salinas Valley-180/400 Foot Aquifer, Salinas Valley-East Side Aquifer, and Salinas Valley-Monterey subbasins. As described in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, water supplies in the Salinas District would be adequate to serve projected demand through 2045 in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not introduce unplanned population growth. As such, the project’s water supply needs are considered in the supply/demand estimates in the UWMP. As shown in Table 22 in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Cal-Water Salinas District would have adequate water supply to serve projected water demand for the normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through 2045. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources via water demand.

Development of the project would include additional landscaped areas and an urban park/open space area along the eastern site boundary and therefore, would increase pervious surfaces, reducing the volume of runoff from the site when compared to existing conditions. In addition, the project proponent would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3- City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

82 2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities.

The proposed hotel would include an underground storm water chamber and tree box filters in the northern portion of the Phase 1 area, and future development would include underground storm water chambers, tree box filters, and bioretention planter areas which would allow for groundwater recharge on the project site. Currently, almost no recharge occurs on the project site due to the paved nature and limited landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would increase groundwater recharge across the project site compared to existing conditions. Impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Because the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, development of the prosed hotel and future development would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 180-400 Foot Aquifer GSP.

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacit y of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Drainage on the project site generally follows the gently sloping topography of the site. Existing stormwater drainage systems include curb and gutter along John, Abbott, and Spicer Streets. The proposed four-story hotel would involve cutting approximately 3,900 CY of earth and filling with 8,700 CY, for a net fill of 4,800 CY. Future development of remaining phases would involve cutting approximately 6,400 CY of earth and filling with 9,800 CY, for a net fill of 3,400 CY. The project would also include improvements to the existing stormwater drainage of the site, including underground storm water chambers, tree box filters, bioretention planter areas, and landscaping.

Construction would not substantially change the topography of the site. Currently, the project site is developed with impervious surfaces (paving and structures) that cover the majority of the site.

Development of the project would include additional landscaped areas and an urban park/open space area along the eastern site boundary and therefore, would increase pervious surfaces, reducing the volume of runoff from the site when compared to existing conditions. In addition, the project proponent would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3- 2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities.

Stormwater leaving the project site would enter the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Therefore, development of the hotel would not result in increased surface runoff that could result in flooding or exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, the hotel would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff.

As stated previously, construction of the proposed hotel and future development, including upsizing the existing sewer line, would be conducted in compliance with the State’s Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Preparation of the SWPPP in accordance with the Construction General Permit would require erosion-control BMPs at the construction area. BMPs that are typically specified within the SWPPP may include, but would not be limited to, temporary measures during construction, revegetation, and structural BMPs. Therefore, development of the proposed hotel and future development would not result in substantial erosion or siltation during construction.

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site and surrounding area are located within Flood Zone X, 0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard (FEMA 2009), which is an area of moderate flood hazard. Any materials stored on the project site that could pollute runoff from flood events would be properly contained and stored per applicable local, state, and federal regulations (refer to Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information). The project site is not located near any dams, levees, or other major bodies of water that could produce seiche impacts at the site. Further, the project site is not located in a tsunami inundation zone and there are no large bodies of water that would be subject to seiche (DOC 2020).

The project would be required to comply with City design standards, which require sites greater than five acres to mitigate floodwater for 10-year (10 percent annual chance) and 100-year (1 percent annual chance) storm events. Pursuant to SMC Chapter 29, which outlines stormwater management and discharge measures, the project will be required to incorporate stormwater control measures to mitigate existing pre-project and resulting post-project flood flows to prevent downstream flooding. Therefore, inundation of the site would not occur during the one-percent annual flood, and development of the four-story hotel proposed under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would not release pollutants into floodwaters. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

84 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The PUD site is within a completely developed area, and the proposed project and upsized sewer line would not separate connected neighborhoods or land uses from each other. The project would not require new roadways outside of the project site that would divide existing communities or make them inaccessible; planned roadways and internal drives within the project would not divide any established communities. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
As discussed in Section 6, General Plan Designation, the PUD site is located on a site designated as Office and General Industrial. The project site also falls within the Abbott Street Focused Growth Overlay District, which the City’s General Plan describes as an existing urbanized area where additional growth and/or redevelopment and revitalization would be appropriate and provide benefits to the community (City of Salinas 2006).

As stated in Section 7, Zoning, the site is zoned as Commercial Office and General Industrial, sharing the same boundaries as the General Plan designations. Salinas Municipal Code (SMC) defines Commercial Office as areas primarily for offices, personal services, financial services, mixed-use residential and for residential uses (SMC Section 37-30.190(k)(2)). The code defines General Industrial as areas that provide for the full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, and distribution uses deemed suitable (SMC Section 37-30.300(e)(3)).

Table 14 lists applicable General Plan policies intended to reduce environmental effects of projects (City of Salinas 2002) and indicates the project’s consistency with those policies. This table also includes policies related to land use and planning for informational purposes.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

86 Table 14 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Policy Consistency
Policy LU -1.1: Balanced Land Use Pattern. Achieve a
balance of land uses to provide for a range of housing, jobs, libraries, and educational and recreational facilities that allow residents to live, work, shop, learn, and play in the community.

Consistent. The project would facilitate the development of an under -utilized area with a mix of uses, specifically residential and commercial.

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

Consistent. The project would develop 242 residential units that would assist in accommodating population growth.

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

Consistent. The project would involve infill development in an already urbanized area, where no active agricultural lands exist.

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

Consistent. The project would involve development within the Abbott Street Focused Growth Area and would
maintain compact city form.

Policy LU-2.5. Future Growth and the Environment. Ensure that negative impacts of future growth on environmental quality and quality of life are minimized and adequate
levels of urban services and facilities are maintained.

Consistent. This IS -MND demonstrates that the project
would not have significant impacts on the environment.

Mitigation measures are provided where applicable,
including under Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportati on, and
Tribal Cultural Resources , implementation of which would ensure potential impacts are mitigated to less than
significant levels. The project would involve commercial and residential development, which would contribute to
the urban services and facilities within the city.

Policy LU-3.7. Revitalization of Commercial and Industrial Areas. Revitalize the existing commercial and industrial areas within the City including: the Central City and Sunset Avenue Redevelopment Project Areas; the commercial
areas along North and South Main Streets, West Market
and Abbott Street.

Consistent. The proj ect would involve commercial and
residential development along Abbott Street and would
revitalize an existing commercial area.

Policy LU -3.8: Essential Worker Housing. Encourage the production of housing that meets the needs of agricultural and other essential workers within the community.

Consistent. The project would develop 242 residential units that could serve essential worker populations.

Source: City of Salinas 2002
As demonstrated in Table 14, the project would be consistent with the applicable land use policies of the 2002 General Plan. The project would also be consistent with other land use policies and regulations. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not conflict with the current AQMP that MBARD adopted to provide a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards. As described in Section 6, Energy, development facilitated by the project would not conflict with General Plan energy-related policies, and in Section 9, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, development facilitated by the project would not conflict with GHG-related policies provided in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, as described in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not conflict with adopted water quality standards or policies.

The project would be consistent with applicable 2002 General Plan policies and other plans the City has adopted to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

88 12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
□ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Although quarrying operations have previously occurred in the City, most mineral extraction sites are no longer considered significant resources (City of Salinas 2002). The General Plan does not identify mineral resources within or near the site, including the location of the off-site sewer line replacement (City of Salinas 2002). The site and sewer line footprint is fully developed, and no mineral extraction presently occurs or is proposed to occur on or near the site. Therefore, the PUD would not affect the availability of any mineral resources. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

13 Noise

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

H

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

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

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

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

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

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (L DN), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL or L
DEN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).4 The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the LDN/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by LDN and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018).

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

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak

4 Because DNL and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of DNL or CNEL, the dBA unit is not included.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

Project Noise Setting
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Noise sensitive receivers include residences, schools, hospitals, religious meetings, and recreation areas (City of Salinas 2002b). The nearest noise-sensitive receivers are multi-family homes located approximately 105 feet west of the project site along Abbott Street. Additional sensitive receivers include residences approximately 330 feet west of the project site along Winham Street.

Noise Measurements
The most prevalent source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic on Abbott Street to the west, John Street to the north, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site, four 15-minute sound level measurements and one 24-hour sound level measurement were conducted on Thursday, December 9, 2021 and Friday, December 10, 2021. An Extech, Model 407780A, ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meter was used to conduct the measurements. Figure 6 shows the noise measurement locations, and Table 15 and Table 16 summarizes the results of the noise measurements. Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix E.

Table 15 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results: Short-Term Measurement Location Sample Times
Approximate
Distance to Primary Noise
Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST1 Northern property boundary,
adjacent to John Street
12:43 – 12:58
p.m.

Approximately 35 feet to
John Street centerline
71 54 79
ST2 West of project site, adjacent to
Abbott Street
1:11 – 1:26 p.m. Approximately 40 feet to
Abbott Street centerline
71 53 93
ST3 Center of project site, near
existing buildings
9:18 – 9:33 a.m. Approximately 525 feet to
Abbott Street centerline
58 53 69
ST4 South of project site, near
adjacent properties along
Spicer Street
1:50– 2:05 p.m. Approximately 2 5 feet to
adjacent properties along
Spicer Street
59 49 76
Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix E.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

92 Table 16 Project Site Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results: Long Term Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time1 dBA Leq
24-hour Measurement – 12/09, 12/10
2:30 p.m. 70 2:30 a.m. 49
3:30 p.m. 49 3:30 a.m. 52
4:30 p.m. 50 4:30 a.m. 53
5:30 p.m. 49 5:30 a.m. 54
6:30 p.m. 48 6:30 a.m. 54
7:30 p.m. 55 7:30 a.m. 58
8:30 p.m. 50 8:30 a.m. 55
9:30 p.m. 47 9:30 a.m. 49
10:30 p.m. 47 10:30 a.m. 48
11:30 p.m. 47 11:30 a.m. 54
12:30 a.m. 45 12:30 p.m. 55
1:30 a.m. 47 1:30 p.m. 50
24-hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 59
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; CNEL = community equivalent noise level 1Sample times shown in this table are the correct sample times. The date and time located in the raw data is not shown correctly due to an input error.

See Figure 6 for noise measurement locations; see Appendix E for full measurement details.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Figure 6 Noise Measurement Locations

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

94 a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.

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

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

Construction noise would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Noise levels are based on a grader, dozer and excavator operating simultaneously, which would occur under the most intensive construction phase, grading. The type of equipment utilized during the grading phase was based on applicant provided information. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. However, construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Pursuant to Section 5-13.01 of the Salinas Municipal Code, noise generated by construction activities would only be allowed to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Project construction would comply with the allowed hours. Because the City does not state a quantifiable noise construction equipment noise threshold and for purposes of analyzing impacts from this project, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) criteria were used. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA L
eq for an 8-hour period (FTA 2018).

Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as 105 feet to adjacent properties (e.g., the residences to the west) but would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the size of the project site.

Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 730 feet from the nearest residential property to the west. Construction of the upsized sewer line would occur along Abbott Street would be as close as 50 feet to existing residences. While excavation and pipeline installation would generate noise, construction of the sewer line would be linear. Therefore, construction equipment would Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

move along the pipeline alignment throughout construction would not affect individual residences for an extended period of time.

Construction noise is typically loudest during activities that involve excavation and moving soil, such as site preparation and grading. A potential high-intensity construction includes a dozer, grader, and excavator working during grading and excavation. At a distance of 730 feet, a dozer, grader and excavator would generate a noise level of 60 dBA L
eq (RCNM calculations are included in Appendix
E). Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq-for residential uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Mechanical Equipment
Typical HVAC equipment generates noise levels up to 72 dBA Leq at three feet. Like idling noise, HVAC noise is considered a steady state noise source, and the Lmax would also generally not be more than 5 dBA higher than the Leq. The Lmax would be approximately 78 dBA at three feet. To determine the noise level at the nearest residential receptors, the distance between source and receiver is measured from the edge of the proposed building to the noise-sensitive property line. The building is set back approximately 115 feet from the residences across Abbott Street to the west. At this distance, noise levels would attenuate to approximately 40 dBA Lmax or less. This would not exceed the City’s noise limit of below 60 dBA CNEL for noise sources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Other Operational Noise
Other noise sources associated with operation of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project and future development under the remaining project phases would consist of vehicular noise on internal roadways and parking lots, landscaping maintenance, general conversations, pool and spa activities, park activities, and trash hauling activity. As shown in Figure 2-3 in Section 2, Project Description, new parking spaces would be distributed through the project site next to internal roadways. Parking lot activities can generate instantaneous or short-term noise from car doors slamming, beeps, alarms, tire movements, engines, radios, and infrequent use of sweepers.

However, parking lot noise would be consistent with adjacent commercial land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Parking lot noise also would not typically have a substantial contribution to hourly equivalent noise levels from transportation sources near the project site, relative to measured noise levels reaching 71 dBA L
eq along Abbott Street and John Street. Additional on-site noise sources such as landscape maintenance, low-speed traffic on internal roadways, conversations, pool and spa activities, park activities, and trash hauling also would be typical of noise generated by neighboring land uses and would not substantially contribute to overall ambient noise levels. Therefore, on-site operations would have a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receivers.

Off-site Roadway Noise
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. The following thresholds of significance similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. A significant impact would occur if traffic noise increases the existing noise environment by the following:
 Greater than 1.5 dBA for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

96  Greater than 3 dBA for ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 CNEL  Greater than 5 dBA for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL The project’s contribution to a traffic noise increase was estimated using the PM peak hour traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis to estimate the average daily traffic (ADT) on study roadway segments (Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer 2022). It was assumed that peak hour traffic represents 10 percent of the ADT. The posted speed limit on Abbott Street and John Street is 35 miles per hour. Maple Street, Spicer Street and Spring Street were not included in the analysis because these are minor side streets. In addition, traffic on the driveway extensions into the project site were not analyzed as they would be low speed roadways generating noise within the project site. The vehicle classification mix for modeling assumed 97 percent automobiles, 2 percent medium-duty trucks, and 1 percent heavy-duty trucks. Traffic distribution through the day was modeled assuming 85 percent of total daily vehicle traffic during daytime hours and 15 percent of daily vehicle traffic during nighttime hours.

Noise levels with and without project-generated traffic for the existing and existing plus project scenarios are shown in Table 17. As shown below, the project would not result in traffic noise increases that exceed the FAA criteria. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 17 Project Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
Existing
Volume
(ADT)
Existing +
Project
Volume
(ADT)
Existing
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
Existing +
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA
CNEL)
John Street From Abbott Street to Spring
Street
35 20,500 26,830 70.9 72.1 1.2
John Street From Abbott Street to Front
Street
35 15,510 17,630 69.7 70.3 0.6
Abbott Street From John Steet to Maple
Street
35 17,610 23,140 69.0 70.2 1.2
Abbott Street From Maple Street to John
Street
35 17,550 23,460 69.0 70.2 1.3
Abbott Street From Maple Street to Spicer
Street
25 17840 21,000 71.0 71.7 0.7
Abbott Street From Spicer Street to Maple
Street
25 17770 20,930 71.0 71.7 0.7
Abbott Street From Spicer Street to
Alameda Avenue
35 16630 20,190 68.8 69.6 0.8
dBA = A-weighted decibels; ADT = average daily trips; mph = miles per hour Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Noise levels with and without project-generated traffic for the cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios are shown in
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

98 Table 18. As shown in
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Table 18, the project would not result in cumulative traffic noise increases that exceed the FAA criteria. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

100
Table 18 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
Existing
Volume
(ADT)
Cumulative
No Project
(ADT)
Cumulative+
Project Volume
(ADT)
Existing
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Cumulative
No Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Cumulative
+ Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Cumulative
Noise Level
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Contribution to
Cumulative Noise
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
John Street From Abbott Street
to Spring Street
35 20,500 27,060 30,740 70.9 70.9 72.7 1.8 0.6
John Street From Abbott Street
to Front Street
35 15,510 15,870 17,990 69.7 69.7 70.3 0.6 0.5
Abbott Street From John Steet to
Maple Street
35 17,610 29,140 34,660 69.0 69.0 71.9 2.9 0.8
Abbott Street From Maple Street to
John Street
35 17,550 28,940 34,000 69.0 69.0 71.9 2.9 0.8
Abbott Street From Maple Street to
Spicer Street
25 17,840 29,050 31,360 71.0 73.1 73.4 2.4 0.3
Abbott Street From Spicer Street to
Maple Street
25 17,770 29,370 31,680 71.0 71.4 73.5 2.5 0.3
Abbott Street From Spicer Street to
Alameda Avenue
35 16,630 27,770 30,080 68.8 71.0 71.3 2.6 0.3
dBA = A-weighted decibels; ADT = average daily trips; mph = miles per hour

Environmental Checklist
Noise

b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Operation of the proposed project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Thus, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation of the project site. The greatest vibratory source during construction would be a dozer. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the proposed project. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by Caltrans and the FTA (Caltrans 2020a; FTA 2018). Table 19 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018).

Table 19 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities Equipment PPV at 25 feet (inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
As stated previously, the greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from a dozer, which would be used during site preparation and grading activities and may be used within 105 feet of the nearest off-site residential structures to the west. A dozer would create approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This would equal a vibration level of 0.02 in/sec PPV at a 105 feet. 5 This would be lower than what is
considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans of 0.24 PPV in/sec, and the structural damage impact to school structures of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the dozer (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

Operation
As a mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses, the proposed project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations. No operational vibration impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest public airport to the site is the Salinas Municipal Airport located approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the project site. The site is not within the airport’s 55 dBA CNEL contour (City of Salinas 2002b). Because the site is located outside the noise contours of the Salinas Municipal Airport, and no other airports are located nearby, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft-related noise. No impacts would occur.

5 PPVEquipment = PPVRef (25/D)n (in/sec), PPVRef = reference PPV at 25 feet, D = distance ,and n = 1.1 City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

102

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist
Noise

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

104
14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
□ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
At its completion, the proposed mixed-use project would develop 242 residential units, 107,900 square feet of retail use, 70,000 square feet of hotel space, and 30,900 square feet of office use in the city. As such, the project would directly generate population growth. Based on a per-person household rate of 3.85 for the City of Salinas (DOF 2021), the 242 residential units would add an estimated 932 new residents to the city’s population at full buildout. 6 Phase 1, which would only
include development of the hotel, would not involve the addition of any permanent residents. As shown in Table 20, the hotel would add approximately 47 jobs.

Furthermore, the retail, hotel, and office use included in the PUD would increase the employee population of the city. The US Green Building Council establishes average square feet per employee rates (US Green Building Council 2008), which can be used to estimate the number of jobs/employees generated by development. Table 20 below shows the average square feet per employee for retail, hotel, and office use, and potential project employee generation.

Table 20 Employee Population Estimates
Commercial Use
Average Square Feet
per Employee Proposed Project Buildout
Number of Employees
Generated
Retail 550 sf 107,900 sf 197
Hotel 1,500 sf 70,000 sf 47
Office 250 sf 30,900 sf 124
Total 368
Source: US Green Building Council 2008

6 242 units multiplied by an average of 3.85 persons per unit is approximately 932 residents.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

As shown above, the PUD’s retail, hotel, and office uses would generate approximately 368 employees at full buildout.

The current population of Salinas is estimated at 160,206 (DOF 2021); therefore, the addition of new residents at the PUD site would increase the City’s population to 161,138. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) estimates that the City’s population will increase to 184,599 by 2040, a projected increase of 24,393 residents from 2021 (AMBAG 2018). The population increase facilitated by the PUD would therefore be within AMBAG’s population forecast for the city. In a conservative, maximum-growth scenario in which every employee relocates to Salinas with their household, the proposed commercial uses would facilitate the addition of approximately 974 new residents to Salinas, which would still be within AMBAG’s population projections. However, this scenario is highly unlikely as most jobs generated by the project would be filled by existing residents.

Additionally, the city currently has 43,579 housing units (DOF 2021). The addition of 242 units would increase the total number of housing units to 43,821. The latest AMBAG projections estimate that the number of housing units in the city by 2040 will be 53,043 (AMBAG 2018). The housing growth facilitated by the project is therefore well within AMBAG projections. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth through the provision of new housing units.

As shown in Table 20, the project would generate approximately 368 new jobs, including 47 jobs associated with the hotel under Phase 1. This increase in jobs would be within AMBAG’s projected 2040 employment increase of 9,024 jobs in Salinas between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, the proposed project would not facilitate substantial unplanned population growth in the area through the provision of additional jobs.

Overcrowding is a documented issue in the City, with 7,351 households, or 18 percent of all households, categorized as overcrowded in 2016 (County of Monterey 2019). This is further evidenced by the persons per household rate in the City of Salinas (3.85) as compared to Monterey County (3.32) and the State of California as a whole (2.93) (DOF 2021). The PUD would assist in alleviating overcrowding in the City by providing more available units to existing residents. Upsizing of the sewer line would only serve proposed project development and would not induce additional growth in the project area. Overall, the number of residents, housing units, and jobs that would be facilitated by the proposed project are within applicable AMBAG growth projections. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in Salinas. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The only structures located at the PUD site are a produce wholesaler building, a packing supply store, and vehicle storage. There are no existing housing units or people residing at the site.

Therefore, future buildout facilitated by the proposed project would not displace any existing housing units or people. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

106
15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Salinas Fire Department (SFD) provides all-risk fire protection to the City of Salinas in the form of fire suppression, search and rescue, emergency medical services, operational training, disaster preparedness, community education, and other services based on community needs. Total authorized staffing for the SFD is 99 personnel, 93 of which are sworn public safety employees. A second truck company was added to the city in July of 2016, resulting in increased fire protection services in the city and a minimum of 24 fire personnel on-duty at all times (Sparks 2022). SFD operates with three platoons. Each platoon has six engine companies that are made up of a Captain, Engineer, and one Firefighters, with one of the members being a Paramedic. The department has six pumper trucks, two ladder trucks, a crash truck for airport emergencies and other service vehicles (Salinas 2021b).

The SFD has established performance goals for the first unit response time of within five minutes, 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time for fire incidents; within five minutes, 90 percent of the time for emergency medical incidents; and within five minutes, 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time for all Environmental Checklist
Public Services

other priority incidents. Overall, response time for all priority incidents was within seven minutes, 23 seconds, 90 percent of the time during 2018, indicating that the SFD is not meeting its performance goals (Salinas 2019a).

SFD Fire Station #3 is closest to the project site at 827 Abbott Place, approximately 0.6 mile south.

The project site is in the existing service area of the SFD. All future development at the project site would be required to comply with current Fire Code requirements and project design plans would be reviewed by the SFD prior to construction. The project would facilitate population growth and would result in an increased demand for services proportional to the population increase; however, the increase would be incremental and within the growth projections for Salinas (AMBAG 2018). The addition of an estimated 932 future residents would not create excessive demand for emergency services or introduce development to areas outside of normal service range that would necessitate new fire protection facilities. Pursuant to the California Fire Code, future development of the project site would undergo review by the SFD during the Building Permitting process to ensure adequate access, consistency with existing facilities, and acceptable response times. Therefore, the project would not place an unanticipated burden on fire protection services or affect response times or service ratios such that new or expanded fire facilities would be needed. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Salinas Police Department (SPD) provides police protection in the City of Salinas. The SPD has 139 full-time sworn officers (Sparks 2022). Based on the city’s current population of approximately 160,206 residents (DOF 2021), the SPD has approximately one sworn officer for every 1,153 residents. The SPD is divided into three divisions: Field Operations, Investigations, and Administration. The Field Operations Division is headed by one Assistant Chief who oversees the Patrol Division, K-9 Unit, Traffic Unit, Crime Scene Investigators Unit, and Special Operations (SPD 2021).

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

The nearest police station to the project site is located at 312 East Alisal Street, approximately 0.3- mile northeast. The project site is in the SPD service area. The project would generate new population and associated demand for services; however, the increase would be incremental and within the growth projections for Salinas (AMBAG 2018). The addition of an estimated 932 residents would not create excessive demand for police services or introduce development to areas outside of normal service range that would necessitate new police protection facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities that could have an environmental impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

108
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The project site is located in the Salinas City Elementary and Salinas Union High School Districts (Salinas 2017). In the 2019-2020 school year, Salinas City Elementary School District had an enrollment of 8,689 students (California Department of Education 2021a) and Salinas Union High School District had an enrollment of 15,818 students (California Department of Education 2021b).

Salinas City Elementary School District has a total capacity of approximately 8,900 students (Ed-Data 2021a) and Salinas Union High School District has a total enrollment capacity of approximately 16,800 students (Ed-Data 2021b). Based on the school districts’ current enrollment, Salinas City Elementary School District has an available capacity of 211 students and Salinas Union High School District has an available capacity of 982 students, resulting in a total available capacity of 1,193 students. Development facilitated by the proposed project would add 242 new housing units in Salinas and would not result in an exceedance in capacity of the local elementary and high school districts. Assuming a conservative student generation rate of one student per residential unit, the development of the project site would generate up to 242 additional students at local schools.

While future development would generate up to 242 additional students, the Salinas City Elementary School District and Salinas Union High School District would have a remaining total available capacity of 951 students. Therefore, new school facilities would not be required as the increase in students would be incremental. Furthermore, school developer fees would be collected for construction of the proposed project. The Salinas City Elementary School District requires $0.23 per square foot and $1.42 per square foot for commercial and residential development, respectively (Salinas City Elementary School District 2022), and the Salinas Union High School District requires $0.30 per square foot and $1.95 per square foot for commercial and residential development, respectively (Salinas Union High School District 2022). As stated in California Government Code Section 65997, payment of school developer fees is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. Therefore, impacts related to the need for new school facilities as a result of implementing the proposed project would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As described in Section 16, Recreation, the Salinas General Plan establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of developed community parkland per 1,000 residents. The city’s current estimated population is 160,206 residents (DOF 2021). According to a recreational facility inventory conducted in 2019, Salinas provides approximately 648 acres of public parkland and recreational facilities distributed throughout 52 park sites and numerous open space parcels (Salinas 2019b). Therefore, the ratio of all public parkland, facilities and open space parcels to residents in the city is approximately 4.04 acres for every 1,000 residents. The construction of 242 housing units under the proposed project would result in a parkland, facilities and open space parcels ratio of approximately 4.02 acres of developed public parkland, facilities and open space parcels for every 1,000 residents. This would result in an incremental reduction in available recreation space per resident in the city. However, Environmental Checklist
Public Services

the parkland, facilities and open space parcels ratio would still be above the minimum requiredparkland, facilities and open space parcels standard of 3.0 acres of all public parkland, facilities and open space parcels per 1,000 residents. In addition, under Phase 6 of the project, an urban park/open space is envisioned in the eastern portion of the site that would provide additional outdoor recreational space to residents. Therefore, while the project would facilitate new housing development that would contribute additional residents to the city’s population, the incremental increase in residents would not result in overuse of parks such that substantial physical alteration of parks would occur or require the construction of new park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Section 16, Recreation, for further discussion.

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

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

The public library system in Salinas is comprised of three branch libraries: John Steinbeck Library, Cesar Chavez Library, and El Gabilan Library. The library collection includes more than 100,000 books, magazines, movies, and audiobooks, and a separate Steinbeck Collection of more than a thousand books, articles, and historical items. The closest library branch is the John Steinbeck Library located at 350 Lincoln Avenue, approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the project site.

As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, development facilitated by the proposed project would generate population growth of approximately 932 residents. This level of population growth would not be substantial in relation to the City’s overall population and would thus not require construction of new library facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

110
16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
□ □ ■ □
a. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansi on of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Pursuant to the City’s Park Classifications and Sports Facilities Standards that were adopted in 2018, parkland is classified to assist in planning for the community’s recreational needs. The six classifications of parks in Salinas include community parks, neighborhood parks, small parks, school parks, greenways, and special use areas (Salinas 2019b). Each classification corresponds to a different size and type of park as well as a different population-based standard for parks to person ratios. According to a recreational facility inventory conducted in 2019, Salinas provides more than 648 acres of public parkland and recreation facilities distributed throughout 52 park sites and numerous open space parcels (Salinas 2019b). Table LU-4 of the Salinas General Plan establishes public services and facility service standards in the city, including standards for the city’s parks and recreation services (Salinas 2002b). The service standard for parks in Salinas, as described by the Salinas General Plan is 3.0 acres of developed community parkland per 1,000 residents. The city’s current estimated population is 160,206 residents (DOF 2021). Therefore, the existing ratio of all public parkland, facilities and open space parcels to residents in the city is approximately 4.04 acres for every 1,000 residents.

Recreational facilities nearest to the project site include the Salinas Parks and Recreation Center, La Paz Park, Clay Street Park, Bataan Memorial Park, and Cesar Chavez Community Park. Cesar Chavez Community Park is a larger community park facility with a minimum of 20 acres or larger of developed recreational space that serves several neighborhoods. La Paz Park is a medium-sized neighborhood park, which provides a social focus and recreational activities within a half mile walking distance of the neighborhood it serves. Clay Street Park and Bataan Memorial Park are small parks that are generally less than two acres in size and provide some recreation services to residents within a quarter mile walking distance (Salinas 2019b). The project would also be served by the Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Hebbron Heights Recreation Center, which is scheduled to be rebuilt by 2025. These parks and recreation facilities are all within a one-mile radius of the project site.

As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would facilitate the development of 242 housing units and up to 149,300 square feet of new retail and office space at the project site and would increase the population of Salinas to 161,138. Therefore, the construction of 242 housing units under the proposed project would result in a parkland ratio of approximately 4.02 acres of all public parkland, facilities and open space parcels for every 1,000 residents. This would result in an incremental reduction in available recreation space per resident in the city. However, all public parkland, facilities and open space parcels ratio would still be above the minimum required standard of 3.0 acres of developed community parkland per 1,000 residents, and under Phase 6 of the project, an urban park/open space is envisioned in the eastern portion of the site that would provide additional outdoor recreational space to residents. Because the project would not appreciably decrease parkland-to-resident ratios and would include an urban park/open space, the project would not create substantial new demand on or cause substantial deterioration of parks such that new park facilities would be required. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

112

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation

17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
□ ■ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
□ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
This section is based in part on existing setting information included in the Salinas Mixed Use Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix F) completed by Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer in February 2022, and on VMT Analysis (Appendix G) completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in December 2022. The VMT Analysis was peer-reviewed by Kimley Horn in August 2022; their peer review is attached to Appendix G.

Existing Setting
Roadway Facilities
The project site is located at the southeast corner of Abbott Street and John Street (State Route [SR] 68), approximately 0.5 mile southeast of downtown Salinas and 0.4 mile west of U.S. Highway 101.

The key roadways in the vicinity of the project include John Street, Abbott Street, Front Street, East Alisal Street, and U.S. Highway 101. These facilities are described below (Appendix F).  John Street is a two- to four-lane major arterial south of downtown Salinas immediately north of the project site. It provides access to residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and industrial and agricultural industrial facilities. Between South Main Street and South Wood Street in Salinas, John Street is also SR 68, which connects Salinas and Monterey. The posted speed limit on Jo hn Street is 30 mph west of Abbott Street and 35 mph east of Abbott Street.  Abbott Street is a four-lane major arterial street immediately west of the project site, providing access to residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and industrial and ag ricultural industrial facilities west of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Its posted speed limit is 35 mph.  Front Street is a two- to four-lane street in Salinas. Abbott Street terminates at its intersection with East San Luis Street northwest of the project site, with Front Street continuing on the City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

114
northern side of East San Luis Street. North of Abbott Street, Front Street is a four -lane major arterial street providing access to residential and commercial properties. South of Abbott Street, Front Street is a two-lane local street that also provides access to residential neighborhoods and commercial properties. The posted speed limit on Front Street is 35 mph between East Alisal Street and Abbott Street and 25 mph north of East Alisal Street. The presumed speed limit on Front Street south of Abbott Street is 25 mph.
 East Alisal Street is a two- to four-lane major arterial street located approximately 0.4 mile north of the project site, providing access to residential neighborhoods and commercial properties east and west of downtown Salinas. It also provides access to downtown Salinas. Its posted speed limit is 35 mph east of Front Street and 25 mph west of Front Street.  U.S. Highway 101 is a regional north -south facility through the City of Salinas, located 0.4 mile east of the project site. It is currently a four-lane roadway with interchanges in the city. The posted speed limit through the city is 65 mph. The nearest and most direct interchange access point to the project from US 101 is the John Street (SR 68) interchange.

Bicycle Facilities
There are four types of bicycle facilities defined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Types of bicycle facilities are described below (Appendix F):
 Bike Path (Class I): A separate right -of-way designed for the exclusive use of bicycle and pedestrian traffic with crossflow minimized.
 Bike Lane (Class II): A striped lane for one -way bike travel on a street or highway, typically including signs placed along the street segment.
 Bike Route (Class III): Provides a shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. Typically, these facilities are city streets with signage designating the segment for Bike Route without additional striping or facilities.
 Separated Bikeways (Class I V): A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on - street parking.

Bike lanes (Class II) are located along both sides of Abbott Street between Harkins Road and Front Street, or for approximately 1.6 miles. Bike lanes are also located along both sides of John Street between Wood Street and South Sanborn Road east of the project site, and along Front Street between Abbott Street and East Alisal Street. Bike routes (Class III) are located along Maple Street west of Abbott Street. All of SR 68 in Salinas, including John Street, is designated as a Caltrans bike route; however, there are not physical bicycle facilities or signs on John Street indicating this designation.

Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are nearly continuous in the area surrounding the project site. There is a sidewalk approximately five feet in width along project site frontages on John Street and Abbott Street, and these sidewalks connect to nearly all other sidewalks in the surrounding area. Gaps in the sidewalk identified by the Salinas Mixed Use Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix F) include John Street at the at-grade Union Pacific railroad crossing in both directions. Crosswalks are striped at all intersections studied by the traffic impact analysis. Near the project site, all crosswalks are striped Environmental Checklist
Transportation

across all approaches at the intersection of John Street and Abbott Street. Crosswalks are partially striped at the following intersections near the project site (Appendix F):
 Spring Street and John Street (across northern portion of Spring Street)  Front Street and John Street (across northern and southern portions of Front Street)  Abbott Street and Maple Street (across Maple Street and northern portion of Abbott Street)  Abbott Street and Alameda Avenue (across western portion of Alameda Avenue and northern portion of Abbott Street)
Transit Facilities
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides fixed route bus service near the project site, and both Greyhound and Amtrak provide regional transit options from the Intermodal Transportation Center, located approximately one mile northwest of the project site. Two one MST bus lines provides service near the project site: Line 96, Salinas – Salinas Airport Business Center, provides hourly weekday service between approximately 7:15 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Appendix F, MST 2022):.  Line 23, Salinas – King City. This line provides weekday and weekend service roughly every 30 - 120 minutes between roughly 4:00 AM – 10:30 PM.
 Line 86, King City – San Jose Airport. This line provides weekday service via four runs (two AM runs and two PM runs) and weekend service via eight runs (four AM runs and four PM runs).

There are three MST bus stops in the vicinity of the project site, all along Abbott Street served by Line 23 96. Bus stops are located at (Appendix F, MST 2022):
 North of Maple Street adjacent to the project site, providing northbound service.  South of John Street across Abbott Street from the project site, providing southbound service.  North of Summer Street, 700 feet north of the project site along Abbott Street, providing northbound service.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Roadway Facilities
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the operating conditions of a roadway or intersection based on speed, travel time, and delay. LOS is described in a ranking system from A to F, with LOS A describing free-flow traffic with individual roadway users primarily unaffected by other vehicles and LOS F describing forced traffic flow characterized by stop and go waves of movement. Senate Bill (SB) 743 has phased out the use of LOS to determine potential transportation impacts under CEQA and replaces the metric with vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or the total number of miles of vehicle travel associated with a project or area divided by its population. SB 743 became effective in July 2020; however, the City of Salinas’ General Plan includes policies related to LOS that still apply to the City and new development. Policy C-1.2 states that the City shall strive to maintain LOS D or better at all intersections and roadways, and Policy C-1.3 requires new development to demonstrate that traffic levels meeting established General Plan standards will be maintains on arterial and collector streets. In evaluating project consistency with City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

116
the City’s General Plan, a comparison of LOS is still required per General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-

1.3. This analysis is provided for informational purposes.

The Salinas Mixed Use Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix F) studied 11 intersections in the vicinity of the project site and evaluated their existing LOS during AM and PM peak hours. Of these intersections, four currently operate at LOS D or lower and their LOS deficiencies would be exacerbated by the project. These intersections, their current AM and PM LOS, and their projected LOS with implementation of the project are shown in Table 21.

Table 21 Intersections with Below-Standard Level of Service Intersection Existing LOS LOS with Project
John Street and Abbott Street LOS D (AM), LOS E (PM) LOS E (AM, PM) Spring Street and John Street LOS D (AM), LOS F (PM) LOS F (AM, PM) Abbott Street and Maple Street LOS F (AM), LOS E (PM) LOS F (AM, PM) Abbott Street and Alameda Avenue LOS E (AM, PM) LOS E/F (AM), LOS F (PM) As indicated above, the LOS of these intersections would be impacted by the project, which would result in intersection LOS inconsistent with General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-1.3. The City of Salinas would require the following recommendations in Appendix F be incorporated to the project as conditions of approval, which would improve LOS at the impacted intersections.

Recommendations included in the Salinas Mixed Use Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis to be incorporated as conditions of approval:
 John Street and Abbott Street
 Add a second westbound left turn lane on John Street
 Add a second northbound right turn lane on Abbott Street  Would improve conditions to LOS D
 Spring Street and John Street
 Prevent eastbound left turn movement on John Street
 Eliminate the existing westbound left turn movement on John Street  Prevent northbound left and through movements on Spring Street  Prevent southbound left and through movements on Spring Street  Would improve conditions to LOS C
 Abbott Street and Maple Street (project driveway)
 Add an eastbound right turn lane on Maple Street by prohibiting on -street parking along approximately 75 feet of Maple Street near this intersection  Add a northbound left turn lane on Abbott Street
 Add a southbound left turn lane on Abbott Street
 Provide separate westbound left/through and right turn lanes on Maple Street (project exit)  Would improve conditions to LOS B (AM) and LOS D (PM) Implementation of the above conditions of approval, in addition to the payment of Traffic Ordinance Fees, would improve the LOS of the intersections of John Street and Abbott Street, Spring Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Street and John Street, and Abbott Street and Maple Street. Therefore, the project would be consistent with General Plan Policies C-1.2 and C-1.3. Impacts to roadways would be less than significant.

Bicycle Facilities
As discussed under Existing Setting, there are several Class II and Class III bicycle facilities located in the vicinity of the project site, including bicycle lanes on Abbott Street along the project frontage.

The project is anticipated to generate a minor amount of bicycle traffic (Appendix F), and levels would not exceed those anticipated by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Appendix F). Additionally, the project would provide the required number of bicycle parking spaces pursuant to Section 37-50.400 of Salinas Municipal Code.

Therefore, existing facilities would adequately accommodate additional bicycle traffic generated by the project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Pedestrian Facilities
As discussed under Existing Setting, sidewalks are nearly continuous in the area surrounding the project site, including along project frontages. Pedestrian activity is anticipated to increase due to the project; however, the existing signal at the intersection of John Street and Abbott Street and the recommended signal at Abbott Street and Maple Street would adequately facilitate anticipated pedestrian crossings on John Street and Abbott Street (Appendix F). Therefore, impacts to pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities
As discussed under Existing Setting, three one MST bus lines provides service near the project site with three stops located along the project site frontage. Projected transit demand associated with the project would be minimal and would be accommodated by existing transit service in the project area. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay applicable fees pursuant to the City’s Traffic Fee Ordinance and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Regional Development Impact Fee. Payment of these fees would support development and maintenance of transit facilities serving the project site. Therefore, project impacts associated with transit facilities would be less than significant.

Development of the project site would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines replace congestion-based metrics, such as auto delay and LOS, with VMT as the basis for determining significant impacts. In adherence to SB 743, the City of Salinas has adopted its SB 743 Implementation Policy, which aligns with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. The City’s VMT Evaluation Tool (shown in Appendix G) was used to determine VMT generated by the project. In accordance with the City’s SB 743 Implementation Policy and OPR guidance, the project would result in a significant impact if it would generate VMT greater than 6.6 VMT per employee or 9.7 per City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

118
resident, both of which are 15 percent below the countywide average. If it is anticipated that a project would have a significant impact on VMT, the impact must be reduced by modifying the project and/or implementing mitigation measures, which could include a travel demand management program, to reduce its VMT to an acceptable level.

Hotel Use
The project would include a 111-room hotel, which would be constructed under Phase 1 of the project. Hotels are not explicitly included in the City of Salinas’ VMT policy or in the OPR VMT guidelines; however, the VMT analysis for the proposed hotel can be considered equivalent to retail use. Hotels exhibit similar vehicle mode share characteristics, travel patterns, and trip length characteristics to that of local retail uses (Appendix G). Therefore, based on trip generation estimates, the 111-room hotel would generate daily trips equivalent to 9,000 square feet of retail space (see Appendix G for further information). This small amount of equivalent retail space meets the screening criterion set forth in the City’s VMT Guidelines, which are established to screen out projects not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to VMT. The applicable screening criterion is defined as local serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; therefore, the proposed hotel component of the project would be expected to result in less than significant VMT impacts.

Other Project Uses
The project would include other mixed use land uses, including 242 dwelling units and 107,900 square feet of retail to be constructed during future phases of future development. The City of Salina’s VMT Guidelines include screening criteria for projects that are expected to result in a less- than-significant VMT impact based on the project description, characteristics, and/or location. The screening criteria set forth in the City’s VMT Guidelines retail, medical office, and residential uses are based upon local-serving retail, local essential services, and residential uses. These screening criteria and the project’s consistency are demonstrated in the following sections and discussed further in Appendix G.

Local-Serving Retail
Projects are presumed to cause a less than significant impact if:
 No single store on-site exceeds 50,000 square feet; and  Project is local- serving as determined by the City of Salinas, unless the nature of the service is regionally focused as determined by the City of Salinas The project would include 109,700 square feet of local-serving retail spaces across several buildings, with a maximum store size of 13,000 square feet in one building. Therefore, the proposed retail component of the project site would meet this screening criterion, and impacts would be less than significant.

Local Essential Service
Projects are presumed to cause a less than significant impact if:
 Building is less than 50,000 square feet; and
 Land use consists of day care center, a public K -12 school, a police or fire facility, a medical or dental office building, or government offices, unless the nature of the service is regionally focused as determined by the City of Salinas.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation

The project would include 13,440 square feet of medical office space, which is considered local essential service, the size of which is below 50,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed medical office space component of the project would meet this screening criterion, and impacts would be less than significant.

Residential
Based on the City’s VMT Guidelines, the VMT impact threshold for residential development is 9.7 VMT, which is 15 percent below existing countywide average VMT per capita. As specified in the City’s VMT Guidelines, residential development are presumed to cause a less than significant impact if:
 The area of development is under threshold as shown on the City’s screening map, as allowed by the City of Salinas; unless
 The project would represent significant growth that would substantially change regional travel patterns, as determined by the City of Salinas.

The project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1263, which is located within an area indicated to have residential VMT per capita that is at or below 15 percent below the countywide average, as shown on the Residential VMT per Capita Map (Appendix G). Therefore, the project’s residential component would have a less than significant impact.

Office
The project would include approximately 17,460 square feet of office space, which would be constructed under Phase 3 and Phase 7 of the project. The project is located in TAZ 1263, as shown in Appendix G; the existing daily VMT per employee for office uses within this TAZ is estimated to be

7.57. Assuming office use VMT would be similar under the proposed project, 7.57 VMT per project employee would exceed the threshold of 6.6 VMT per employee. Therefore, the future office components of the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1 to reduce its VMT to a less than significant level.

TRA-1 Office Use VMT Reduction Program
The applicant for future office use development shall prepare and implement a VMT Reduction Program that reduces VMT
generated by the office components of the project to VMT per employee of 6.6 or less. The VMT Reduction Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of permits for proposed office uses. The strategies shall include the following:
 Reduce Transit Headways and Improve On-Street Bike Facilities. Queue jump lanes shall be installed for northbound MST buses at the Maple Street and Abbott Street intersection, and bike lanes shall be installed along project site frontages with John Street and Abbott Street. The project applicant shall pay for the cost of installation of queue jump lanes and bike lanes.  Safe and Well-Lit Access to Transit. Office uses shall include pedestrian facility improvements along street frontages, which shall include exterior lighting along project frontages served by transit.
 Preferential Carpool/Vanpool Parking Spaces. Office uses shall include reserved carpool/vanpool spaces close to the building entrances based on the City’s parking requirements.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

120
 Designated Parking Spaces for Car Sharing Vehicles. Office uses shall provide designated parking spaces for car sharing vehicles.
 Bike Charging Facility. Office uses shall include a secure bike charging facility on site.  Pedestrian Network Improvements. Office uses shall involve pedestrian network improvements throughout and around the project site that encourage people to walk.  Multimodal Wayfinding Signage. Office uses shall include multimodal wayfinding signage to orient users to locations of sustainable transportation.  Bicycle Repair Station/Services. Office uses shall include on-site bicycle repair tools and space to use them to support on-going use of bicycles for transportation.

As shown in the VMT summary report generated by the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool (Appendix G), implementing the above listed mitigation measures would lower the project VMT to 6.55 per employee, which would reduce the project impact to a less-than-significant level.

Proposed components of the project meet the appliable VMT screening criteria as established by the City’s VMT Guidelines. Therefore, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would utilize existing vehicle driveways on John Street, Abbott Street, Spicer Street, as well as future driveways included in the project. The project plans would also be subject to review by the Salinas Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit, and the project would not introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other hazards due to design features.

Furthermore, the project would involve development of residential, hotel, retail, and medical office uses, which would involve typical passenger vehicle traffic of the area and would not introduce incompatible uses on the project site. Therefore, impacts related to hazards or incompatible uses would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The design of the project is required to comply with the County’s standards for emergency vehicle access (including providing adequate points of access, vertical clearance, and turning radius).

Emergency vehicle access would be provided via existing vehicle driveways on John Street, Abbott Street, and Spicer Street, and future driveways included as part of the project. Should any phase of future development require a lane closure of any of the surrounding roadways, including during upsizing of the sewer line along Abbott Street, clear signage (e.g., closure and detour signs) would be provided to ensure vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists are able to adequately reach their intended destinations safely. In operation, the applicant would be required to provide the City with a detailed plan demonstrating that each floor of the proposed buildings would be accessible by a fire aerial apparatus, fire hoses, and other emergency vehicles from surrounding roadways. The project plans would also be subject to review by the Salinas Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access would be available prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the Environmental Checklist
Transportation

project would not result in inadequate emergency access and the impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

122

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
□ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
□ ■ □ □
California Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. 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

2. 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 these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

124
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

On November 3, 2021, the City of Salinas, pursuant to Public Resources 21080.3.1 and AB 52, sent via certified mail notification letters to 14 California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The letter was sent to representatives of the 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 Band of Costanoan, KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria, Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, Rumšen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone, Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, and the Xolon Salinan Tribe. As of December 4, 2021, the City did not receive requests for additional consultation.

As part of the process of identifying cultural resources for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 13, 2021 and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. On October 20, 2021, Rincon received a response from the NAHC stating the SLF search results were negative for site-specific information.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Neither the cultural resources records search nor Native American consultation through AB 52 identified cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local register within the project site. However, there is always potential to uncover buried archaeological and tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities, which could potentially be considered tribal cultural resources eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register or be considered tribal cultural resources.

Should project construction activities encounter and damage or destroy a tribal cultural resource or resources, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that tribal cultural resources are preserved in the event they are uncovered during construction and would reduce impacts regarding disrupting tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 Inadvertent Discoveries During Construction
In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during grading or construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find; an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted; and mitigation measures are put in place for the disposition and protection of any find pursuant to 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 Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s) prior to continuation of any earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

126
19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
□ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
□ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
□ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
□ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
□ □ ■ □
Water
Water for the proposed project would be provided by Cal-Water via existing utilities on and adjacent to the project site. The Cal-Water Salinas District relies entirely on groundwater, with wells that extract water from five different groundwater basins, including the Corralitos-Pajaro Valley Subbasin, Salinas Valley-Langley Area Subbasin, Salinas Valley-180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, Salinas Valley-East Side Aquifer Subbasin, and Salinas Valley-Monterey Subbasin.

The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that each water supplier provide an assessment of the reliability of its water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Table 22 Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

shows Cal-Water’s assessment for normal, single dry, and multiple dry year periods, estimating supply and demand for the Salinas District during the years 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045.

Table 22 Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand – Salinas District 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Total Supply (AFY) 16,609 16,988 17,575 18,175 18,853
Total Demand 16,609 16,988 17,575 18,175 18,853
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Single Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,152 17,542 18,147 18,765 19,464
Total Demand 17,152 17,542 18,147 18,765 19,464
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
First Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Second Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Third Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Fourth Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Fifth Dry Year
Total Supply (AFY) 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Total Demand 17,489 17,886 18,501 19,130 19,842
Supply Shortage? No No No No No
Source: Cal-Water 2021
City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

128
Wastewater
Monterey One Water (M1W) provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City of Salinas. Wastewater is transported to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) located in Marina. The RTP is designed with a daily capacity of 29.6 million gallons for secondary and tertiary treatment, and 5 million gallons for advanced purification for groundwater replenishment (M1W 2021). The RTP treats an average of 17 million gallons per day and has a remaining capacity of 12.6 million gallons per day (M1W 2021).

Stormwater
The City of Salinas owns and operates a municipal storm drainage system for the residents and businesses within its service area. The storm drain system consists of approximately 74 miles of pipeline ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 84 inches, and is organized according to watersheds within the City, including Carr Lake, Gabilan Creek, Natividad Creek, and the Salinas River. The drainage system within each watershed consists of branches of pipes that drain to the receiving watershed, flowing by gravity except for the Salinas River outfall (City of Salinas 2004).

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
As described under Section 6, Energy, the project site would receive power from 3CE, the region’s community choice electricity provider, and natural gas from PG&E. PG&E maintains power lines along several streets east of the project site including Winham Street, Harvest Street, and Maple Street, as well as west of the project site along Work Street (PG&E 2021a). TV and internet services provided by AT&T, Spectrum, EarthLink, Xfinity, and other service providers are available in the project area and would be used at the discretion of future residents and tenants. a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
Development of the proposed hotel and future development would increase demand for water above existing conditions on the project site. According to CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B), the hotel’s estimated water demand would be approximately 9.4 AFY at full buildout, which represents less than a one percent increase above Cal-Water Salinas District’s 2020 water demand of 16,497 AFY. Based on normal year water supply estimates, the increase in water demand from the proposed hotel would not exceed available water supplies of 23,569 AFY in the Salinas District.

Existing supplies would be sufficient to meet forecasted water demand for the hotel. Furthermore, according to CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B), the estimated water demand from future development would be approximately 171 AFY at full buildout, which is an approximately 1 percent increase above Cal-Water Salinas District’s 2020 water demand of 16,497 AFY (Appendix B). Based on normal year water supply estimates, the increase in water demand from Phases 2 through 7 would not exceed available water supplies of 23,569 AFY in the Salinas District. Accordingly, the hotel under Phase 1 and future development under remaining project phases would be accommodated adequately by existing water supplies and would not require additional water supply facilities that would cause significant environmental effects.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Wastewater
The hotel’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 7.5 AFY, or 2.04 million gallons per year (assuming water use is approximately 120 percent of wastewater generation), or approximately 5,590 gallons per day. The estimated wastewater generation from future development under the remaining phases would be approximately 137 AFY, or 44.6 million gallons per year, or approximately 122,190 gallons per day. This would represent approximately 1 percent of the RTP wastewater treatment plant remaining capacity. Combined, the estimated wastewater generated by the hotel and future development would represent approximately 1 percent of the RTP wastewater treatment plant’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the RTP has capacity to meet the wastewater treatment demands that would be generated by the proposed hotel and future development.

The project would increase wastewater flows in sewer main lines that serve the project site.

According to information provided by the City, the sewer main lines that would serve the project are anticipated to exceed peak flow capacity in future conditions. The net increase in wastewater generated by the proposed project would contribute to sewer main lines exceeding capacity. The project would involve upsizing of a portion of the sewer line beneath Abbott Street from an 8-inch sewer to a 12-inch sewer to serve proposed project development. As discussed throughout this document, the project, including the upsized sewer line, would not result in significant effects to the environment. Other new or expanded wastewater facilities would not be required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
The project would be designed and engineered with appropriate drainage features. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project proponent would be required to comply with the City of Salinas MS4 Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES Permit No. CA0049981), which requires the volume of runoff from an 95th percentile storm event be retained on site through either retention basins or bioretention facilities. The project would not require the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
A significant impact to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities may occur if a project’s demand for these services exceeds the capacity of local providers. Telecommunications are generally available in the project area, and facility upgrades would not likely be necessary.

As described in Section 6, Energy, the proposed hotel would require approximately 500 MWh of electricity per year and approximately 3,074 MMBtu of natural gas per year. Future development proposed under the remaining project phases would require approximately 4,116 MWh of electricity per year and approximately 10,570 MMBtu of natural gas per year. The substation that powers lines in the vicinity of the project site has a capacity of approximately 202 megawatts (MW) and a typical load of approximately 110 MW, with a remaining capacity of 92 MW (PG&E 2021a).

The proposed four-story hotel would require approximately 0.06 MW, 7 less than 1 percent of the
remaining capacity of the PG&E substation that serves the project site, and the future development

7 Full buildout of the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project would require 500 MWh per year. 500 MWh per year/365 days per year/24 hours per day = 0.06 MW.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

130
proposed under the remaining project phases would require approximately 1.2 MW,8 approximately

1.3 percent of the remaining capacity of the PG&E substation. Furthermore, PG&E has adequate natural gas storage to ensure adequate natural gas supply, with an average inventory of approximately 4,186 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day (PG&E 2021b). Accordingly, the hotel under Phase 1 and future development under the remaining project phases would be accommodated adequately by existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities and would not require improvements to existing facilities, or the provision of new facilities, that would cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Estimated water demand for the proposed four-story hotel is 9.4 AFY at buildout, and estimated water demand for future development proposed under the remaining project phases is 171 AFY at buildout. As shown in Table 22, available supply is expected to be adequate to serve projected water demand for the normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios assessed through 2045.

Considering the additional water demand resulting from the proposed hotel and future development, adequate water supply would be available to serve full buildout of the project site in any of the above water year scenarios through 2045. However, it should be noted that water supply available through the Cal-Water Salinas District experience small shortfalls, specifically a 2 percent and 4 percent shortfall, respectively, anticipated in 2040 under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions as well as a slight shortfall increase in 2045 (Cal-Water 2021). Any potential dry year shortfalls in 2040 or 2045 in the Cal-Water Salinas District service areas would be alleviated through implementation of the Salinas District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan and other supply augmentation measures (Cal-Water 2021). Therefore, adequate water supply facilities would be available to serve the hotel and future development for the reasonably foreseeable future, and the project site’s water system would connect to existing water supply infrastructure. Water supply impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Sanitary sewer service for the project would be provided by M1W, which operates the RTP. As described above, the RTP has a remaining capacity of 12.6 million gallons per day (M1W 2021). The proposed four-story hotel’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 7.5 AFY or

2.04 million gallons per year (assuming water use is approximately 120 percent of wastewater generation), or approximately 5,590 million gallons per day. This demand would amount to less than 1 percent of RTP wastewater treatment plant remaining capacity. Under Phases 2 through 7, estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 137 AFY, or 44.6 million gallons per year, or approximately 122,190 gallons per day. This would represent approximately 1 percent of the remaining capacity of the RTP wastewater treatment plant.

As discussed under threshold (a), the project would involve upsizing of a portion of the sewer line beneath Abbott Street from an 8-inch to a 12-inch line to serve project buildout. The upsized sewer

8 Full buildout of the development under the remaining project phases would require 10,570 MWh per year. 10,570 MWh per year/365 days per year/24 hours per day = 1.2 MW.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

line, completed as part of the project, would ensure that future development facilitated by the project would be served by wastewater treatment facilities with adequate capacity. Therefore, the project would be served by a wastewater treatment plant with sufficient capacity, and impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure , or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
To comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the City must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste from landfills. In addition, Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) sets a statewide 75 percent recycling goal by 2020. AB 341 also requires businesses generating more than four cubic yards of solid waste to recycle and requires owners of multi-family housing with five or more units to provide recycling for their tenants.

The Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority transports solid waste generated in the City of Salinas to the Johnson Canyon Landfill. The landfill is permitted to receive a maximum throughput of 1,574 tons per day. The landfill has remaining capacity of 6,923,297 cubic yards an estimated closure date of 2055 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2019).

Based on CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B), the proposed four-story hotel developed under Phase 1 would generate approximately 61 tons per year (approximately 334 pounds of solid waste per day).

Assuming a minimum of 50 percent diversion from landfills in accordance with AB 939, the project would send approximately 167 pounds per day, or 0.083 tons per day, to the Johnson Canyon Landfill. This represents less than one percent of the landfill’s allowable daily throughput.

Development under future project phases would generate approximately 626 tons per year (approximately 3,430 pounds of solid waste per day) (Appendix B). Assuming a minimum of 50 percent diversion from landfills in accordance with AB 939, the project would send approximately 1,715 pounds per day, or 0.85 tons per day, to the Johnson Canyon Landfill, which represents less than one percent of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient available capacity and would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

132

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
□ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
□ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
□ □ □ ■
While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code [PRC] 4201-4204, California Gove rnment Code 51175 -89). The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include topography and slope, vegetation type and vegetation condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, ref erred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas.

In California, responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression is shared by federal, state, and local agencies. Federal agencies have legal responsibility to prevent and suppress wildfires in Federal Responsibility Areas. CAL FIRE prevents and suppresses wildfires in State Responsibility Area lands, which are non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value, are of statewide City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

134
interest, defined by land ownership, population density, and land use. Wildfire prevention and suppression in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. These lands include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert (CAL FIRE 2020).

The PUD site is within a developed and urbanized area, with minimal vegetation. The site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not within an area classified as Very High, High, or Moderate for fire hazard severity. The nearest VHFHSZ occurs approximately five miles south of the site, and the nearest SRA with a hazard severity rating is located more than six miles southwest of the site (CAL FIRE 2007).
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The PUD site is not located within or near a SRA or VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007), and the site is surrounded by developed land and paved urban areas. All areas immediately adjacent to the site are non-VHFHSZs. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the Salinas Fire Department provides emergency response and public safety services for the site. In addition, the project would not involve the installation of overhead powerlines or other infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk.

Emergency access to the site would be maintained, and the Salinas Fire Department would review and inspect project plans and development to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not impair adopted emergency response or evacuation plans; exacerbate wildfire risk and expose occupants to wildfire pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire; construct utilities that would exacerbate fire risk; or subject occupants to risks related to post-fire slope instability. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
□ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
□ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Neither the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project nor future development under the remaining project phases would not degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce habitat of fish or wildlife species or other special-status species, as the project is located within a developed area of Salinas. There are no sensitive habitats or wetlands located on or near the project site, and no special-status species are known to occupy the site. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, construction of the project would require the removal of existing trees and landscaping, which migratory birds could use for nest sites. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require that tree City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

136
removal occur outside the migratory bird nesting season, if feasible, and if not feasible, that a nesting bird survey be performed prior to construction. With implementation of mitigation, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. All other biological resources impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

The project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory or history. The project would not result in impacts to built historic resources, as none are located the project site. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project site was historically a produce packing facility. The project site has not yielded and is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history; as such, the project site is not recommended eligible for listing as a contributor to any existing or potential historic district, and is recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or for local designation to the City of Salinas Historic Register, and therefore is not considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Damage or destruction of archaeological resources and human remains, if present, would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 would require archaeological and Native American monitoring, and would require implementation of protective measures should archaeological, paleontological, or Tribal cultural resources be encountered. Implementation of mitigation would ensure that impacts related to cultural and Tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

With mitigation, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The cumulative setting includes proposed and approved projects within a one-mile radius of the project site. Cumulative projects were based upon a list of projects available for public review and comment on the City of Salinas website as well as approved projects within the area, including the Downtown Parking Lot and Intermodal Transportation Center Rezone Project, 11 Hill Circle Residential Project, and 1 Preston Street Project.

As described in Sections 2.1 through 2.20, Neither the proposed hotel under Phase 1 of the project nor future development under the remaining project phases would not result in significant and unmitigable impacts to the environment with respect to all environmental issues.

Cumulative impacts could occur if the construction of other projects occurs at the same time as the proposed project and in the same geographic scope, such that the effects of similar impacts of multiple projects combine to create greater levels of impact than would occur at the project-level.

For example, if the construction of other projects in the area occurs at the same time as project activities, combined air quality and noise impacts may be greater than at the project-level.

Cumulative impacts associated with some of the resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Utilities and Service Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Systems (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][3]) and would be less than significant. Some of the other resource areas were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts, such as Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. As such, cumulative impacts in these issue areas would also be less than significant and the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Other issues (e.g., aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials) are site-specific, and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. The project would incrementally increase traffic compared to existing conditions. However, due to the mixed-use nature of development facilitated by the project, traffic and VMT impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Implementation of the project would not result in impacts that would cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, including those related to air quality, hazardous materials, emergency response, proximity to airport activities, noise, or transportation hazards. As discussed in earlier sections of this IS-MND, these impacts would be less than significant with or without mitigation.

Therefore, the project would not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

138
References
Bibliography
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2016. Final White Paper - Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. October 18, 2016.
______. 2018. Best Practices in Climate Action Planning. June 1, 2018. https://www.califaep.org/docs/AEP_2018_White_Paper_Cap_Best_Practices.pdf (accessed April 2022).

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). 2018. 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. June 2018.
https://ambag.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/AMBAG_MTP- SCS_Final_EntireDocument_PDFA.pdf (accessed October 2021). _______. 2022. 2045 MTP/SCS Monterey Bay 2045 Moving Forward. June 2022. https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/AMBAG_MTP- SCS_Final_EntireDocument_PDFA.pdf (accessed June 2022).

Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Manual 8400 – Visual Resource Management.

Washington, DC. April 5, 1984.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2020. 2019 California Fire Code. Available at:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CFC2019P4 (accessed February 2022).

California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2020. Monterey County Tsunami Inundation Maps. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/monterey (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp). https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Education. 2021a. District Profile: Salinas City Elementary. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=27661420000000 (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021b. District Profile: Salinas Union High.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=27661590000000 (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2021. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB (accessed August 2020).

References

_____. 2020b. Special Animals List. July 2020. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html (accessed August 2020).
_____. 2020c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. September 2020. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html (accessed October 2020).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Industrial Relations. 2020. The Cal / OSHA Hazard Communication Regulation – a Guide for Employers That Use Hazardous Chemicals. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/hazcom.pdf (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021. Cal/OSHA. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/ (accessed February 2022).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill (27-AA-0005). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2636?siteID=1971 (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019. Official California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtsc-laws-regulations/title22/ (accessed February 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed July 2022). ______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). April. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed July 2022). ______. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2021).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020a. Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed July 2022). ______. 2020b. Natural Gas Consumption by County.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed July 2022). ______. 2020c. Natural Gas Consumption by Entity.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed July 2022). ______. 2020d. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california- retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed July 2022).

California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-

36.pdf (accessed October 2021).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. www.rareplants.cnps.org/ (accessed November 2021).

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

140
California Natural Resource Agency. 2018. “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report.” August 27, 2018.
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed April 2022).

California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2021. Hazardous Materials – Special Operations & Hazardous Materials Section. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/individuals-families/hazardous- materials (accessed February 2022).

California Water Service. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan- Salinas District. https://www.calwater.com/conservation/uwmp2020/ (accessed November 2021).

City of Monterey Museums. 2021. Early Monterey History. https://monterey.org/city_facilities/museums/dive_into_history/early_monterey_history.p hp (Accessed October 2021).

Crane, Clare B. 1991. The Pueblo Lands. The Journal of San Diego History 37(2).

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2007. Geologic map of the Marina and Salinas quadrangles, Monterey County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-353, scale 1:24,000.

Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data). 2021a. District Summary for Salinas City Elementary. http://www.ed-data.org/district/Monterey/Salinas-City-Elementary (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021b. District Summary for Salinas Union High. http://www.ed- data.org/district/Monterey/Salinas-Union-High (accessed November 2021).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. FIRM Map 06053C0217G, effective April 2, 2009. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed October 2021).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed July 2022).
______. 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Prepared by ICF International for the Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. January 2015.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed July 2022).

Geare Group Consulting. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. October 17, 2019.

Gudde, Erwin G. 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch, and William N. Abeloe. 2002. Historic Spots in California: 5th Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

References

______. 2021. “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” [Masson- Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.

Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed April 2022).

Jefferson, George T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report 7, p. 5-172.

Jones, Terry L. 1993. The Prehistory of Big Creek. In Views of a Coastal Wilderness: 20 Years of Research at Big Creek Reserve.

Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh. 1995. Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Volume 3: Perspectives in California Archaeology. Los Angeles, California: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau. 2002. Deintensification along the Central California Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M.

Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-232. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6.

Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Monterey, County of. 2020. Geologic Hazards Map.
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80aadc38518a45 889751e97546ca5c53 (accessed October 2021).
_____. 2021. Hazardous Materials Program.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/health/environmental- health/hazardous-materials-management/hazardous-materials-business-plan-requirements (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2022. CUPA Programs. https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a- h/health/environmental-health/hazardous-materials-management/cupa-programs (accessed February 2022).

Monterey Salinas Transit (MST). 2022. Comprehensive Operational Analysis Final Network Plan. https://mst.org/wp-content/media/MST-Final-Network-Plan-Feb-2022.pdf (accessed October 2022).

Monterey One Water (M1W). 2021. Regional Treatment Plant. https://montereyonewater.org/280/Regional-Treatment-Plant (accessed November 2021).

Moratto, Michael. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed October 2021).

Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W. 1990. Geology of California, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

New York.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 2021a. Distribution Investment Deferral Framework (DIDF) Map. https://www.pge.com/b2b/distribution-resource-planning/grid-needs-assessment- map.html (accessed November 2021).

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

142
_____. 2021b. Operating Data - California Gas Transmission Pipeline Status. https://www.pge.com/pipeline/operations/cgt_pipeline_status.page#flows (accessed December 2021).

Paleobiology Database. 2020. Fossilworks web-based portal. http://fossilworks.org and http://paleodb.org (accessed November 2020).

Salinas, City of. 2002a. Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR. August 2002. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/community_developme nt_files/general_plan_files/eir.pdf (accessed October 2021). _____. 2002b. City of Salinas General Plan. September 2002. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city- services/community-development/advanced-planning-division/documents (accessed October 2021).
_____. 2004. Stormwater Master Plan.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/wat er_solid_waste_energy/swds/salinas_storm_water_master_plan.pdf (accessed August 2022).
_____. 2017. School District Map. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/map/school-districts (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2019a. Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. Final Report, August 2019.

Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/fire_department_files/ community_risk_assessment_standard_of_cover_2019.pdf (accessed October 2021). _____. 2019b. Parks, Rec and Libraries.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/sprclsmp_v091019-highres_reduced_2.pdf (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021a. Salinas Municipal Code. (SMC).
https://library.municode.com/ca/salinas/codes/code_of_ordinances (accessed October 2021).
_____. 2021b. Fire Stations and Teams. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/fire- department/fire-stations-and-teams (accessed October 2021).

Salinas City Elementary School District. 2022. Construction and Developer Fees. https://salinascityesd.org/business/construction-and-developer-fees (accessed April 2022).

Salinas Community Development Department. 1982. Salinas Municipal Airport Land Use Plan. March 1982.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/public_works_files/airp ort_files/salinas_clup_reduced_size_adopted_05-17-1982_0.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Salinas Police Department. 2021. Divisions. https://www.salinaspd.com/about-divisions (accessed March 2021).

Salinas Union High School District. 2022. Developer Fees. https://www.salinasuhsd.org/Page/801 (accessed April 2022).

References

Salinas Valley Groundwater. 2016. MAP: Sub-Basins included in Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. https://svbgsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Fact-Sheet-SV-Basin-Map-English-1.pdf (accessed October 2021).

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2020. Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. https://svbgsa.org/180- 400-ft-aquifer/ (accessed November 2021).

Santa Cruz News. 1927. “Articles of Incorporation,” 14 October. Page 2. Accessed October 1, 2021, through newspapers.com.

Seavey, Kent. 1989. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Historic Resources Inventory forms on file with the City of Salinas.
_____. 2010. “A Short History of Salinas, California,” Monterey County Historical Society. http://mchsmuseum.com/salinasbrief.html (accessed October 2020).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

Sparks, Steve. 2022. Email communication with City of Salinas: police department staffing levels.

Thornton, Skylar. 2022. Email communication with City of Salinas: fire department staffing levels.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2020. UCMP specimen search portal. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed March 2020).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021b. Critical Habitat Portal. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021c. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (accessed October 2021).

United States Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Handbook 701: Landscape Aesthetics, a handbook for scenery management. Washington, DC.

United States Energy Information Administration. 2020. California Energy Consumption by End Use Sector, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2 (accessed July 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021a. “Climate Change Indicators:

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated April 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric- concentrations-greenhouse-gases
______. 2021b. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) – User’s Guide. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional- screening-levels-rsls-users-guide (accessed February 2022).

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Salinas. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

City of Salinas
John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project

144
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Megan Jones, MPP, Principal
Katherine Green, AICP, Project Manager
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Heather Dubois, Senior Air Quality and Noise Specialist Bill Vosti, Senior Environmental Planner
JulieAnn Murphy, Senior Architectural Historian Project Manager Ashley Losco, Architectural Historian/Assistant Project Manager Andrew Pulcheon, Principal Archaeologist
Julie Welch, Director of Due Diligence
Savanna Vrevich, Environmental Scientist
Allysen Valencia, GIS Analyst
Isabelle Radis, GIS Analyst

References

This page intentionally left blank.