Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, August 6, 2024 (part 3 of 10)

cycle. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element (6th Cycle), the City of Salinas is pursuing a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target of 6,674 new units.

A step in the right direction is your June 11, 2024 approval of the first of seven phases of the John Street and Abbott Street Mixed Use Development Project (ultimately planned for 141 new units). The Chamber also hopes to see more multistory density infill housing eventually built in Downtown Salinas — a transportation corridor, an employer hub, and a center for retail and entertainment.

However, the North of Boronda Future Growth Area will be most critical for meeting the city’s housing needs.

The Chamber continues to monitor efforts to stop construction of new residential units, whether the opposition is brazen or subtle, legally sophisticated or anchored on populist slogans, or based within the city or provoked by outsiders. Please reject these efforts and support new residential construction in the North of Boronda Future Growth Area.

Sincerely,
Kevin Dayton
Government Affairs Director
July 16, 2024
Salinas Planning Commission
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
Subject: Support for Proposed Central Area Specific Plan Tentative Map 2021-001 Dear Salinas Planning Commissioners:

Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) writes in support of the proposed Central Area Specific Plan. MBEP consists of public, private and civic entities located throughout Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties with a mission to improve the economic health and quality of life through initiatives in housing, broadband, economic development/jobs.

The North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA) is a monumental opportunity in determining future housing outcomes for the City of Salinas. In December 2019, MBEP engaged, supported, and issued recommendations for the then-proposed West Area Specific Plan. In August 2020, MBEP began engaging on the CASP, working through our internal endorsement process and closely with City Staff, to arrive at our recommendations issued at the time of approval in November 2020. The CASP proposes a maximum of 3,911 homes and is anticipated to house up to 14,353 residents at buildout. We are excited to support Stone Bridge and the City in moving this important development forward. The 1,674 new homes proposed for this first major phase of residential development are critically important for our regional workforce.

While we support Stone Bridge’s efforts, we also supported the coalition of local affordable housing advocates in November 2020 calling for a stronger commitment to affordable housing in the build out of the CASP. The coalition of advocates reached an agreement with Stone Bridge to ensure that the inclusionary for sale homes are built concurrently with market rate homes at a 1:6 ratio (1 affordable home for every 6 market rate). Stone Bridge representatives also agreed to work closely with advocates to notify them of upcoming home releases so that potential local home buyers could be referred for purchase at that time. These provisions should be included in the Affordable Housing Plan approved by the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your leadership in providing more housing. Please contact Matt Huerta, Director of Housing and Community Development, [email protected], for more information.

Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
July 9, 2024
Thomas Wiles
Senior Planner
City of Salinas – Community Development Dept.
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Tentative Map 2021-001
Codiroli & Probert Property, Salinas, CA Monterey County Dear Thomas,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the subject plans. The proposed Tentative Map 2021-001 is within the same vicinity of PG&E’s existing Electric Transmission and Distribution facilities that impact this property.

The planned locations of new streetlights appear to be missing. Our electric transmission team requires the locations of the electroliers near our facilities to complete the review.

The plans call for the relocation of PG&E overhead electric distribution lines. Please contact PG&E’s service planning department for any relocation requests, see the contact information below.

Following our review, PG&E recommends the following language be expressly stated for the offer to dedicate Public Utility Easements (PUE):

I/We the undersigned, as Owner(s) of the land shown hereon, do hereby state that I/we am/are the only person(s) whose consent is necessary to pass clear title to said land and do hereby consent to the preparation and recordation of this map and offer for dedication and do hereby dedicate for public uses the Public Utility Easements (PUE’s) shown on this map for public utility purposes including electric, gas, communication facilities and all other public utility purposes; together with any and all appurtenances thereto, including the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away or otherwise control any trees or brush. The PUE’s hereby offered for dedication are to be kept open and free of buildings, structures and wells of any kind.

Please change the above text in red as appropriate. The final map must contain a statement setting forth dedications and offers to dedicate interests in real property for public utility purposes. If the offer of dedication has terminated, or the local agency declines to accept it, the PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
applicant maybe required to provide an easement in gross satisfactory to PG&E. Please note that this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for future review as needed.

Please contact the Building and Renovation Center (BRSC) for facility map requests by calling 1-877-743-7782 and PG&E’s Service Planning department at www.pge.com/cco for any modification or relocation requests, or for any additional services you may require.

As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site.

Sincerely,
Vince Fazzi
Land Agent
Land Management Dept.
(916) 217-1057
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
May 15, 2024
Thomas Wiles
City of Salinas
65 West Alisal St, 2nd Flr
Salinas, CA 93901
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Thomas Wiles,
Thank you for submitting the TM 2021-001 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/buildingand-renovation/overview/overview.page.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.

If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.

10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public

11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”

2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-toconductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.

3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.

6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public

8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.

11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.

12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.

13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

May 24, 2024
Thomas Wiles
City of Salinas
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
RE: Central Area Specific Plan Tentative
Map 2021-001 (TM 2021-001)
Dear Mr. Wiles:

Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) provides public transportation throughout Monterey County and operates an extensive network and transit center in the City of Salinas. MST has reviewed Tentative Map 2021-001 (TM 2021-001) and would like to make the following comments for your consideration:

MST has undergone several planning initiatives and recently reevaluated and redesigned its bus network through a Comprehensive Operational Analysis. The COA does not plan or propose any new service through the proposed Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) area, without any dedicated funding. However, during the previous public comment period (2021), MST received a tentative map that proposes several new bus stops in the proposed Specific Plan area. MST staff provided comments pertaining to the proposed stops. Please refer to MST comment letter dated October 2021 and MST’s Designing for Transit Guidelines (2020) to ensure that all streetscape designs are compatible with transit. Travel lanes shown as bus routes must be a minimum width of 12-feet for transit to operate without encroaching on other lanes.

In addition, sidewalks must be a minimum of 6-feet in width to ensure adequate access pertinent to the standards of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As part of a recent regional planning effort, MST led a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Study. The study identifies land use policies and first-/last mile transportation strategies in five study areas to support TOD opportunities, increase transit ridership potential, and reduce vehicle-miles traveled and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study has basic TOD principles that can be applied throughout the City of Salinas and CASP area. The Plan’s Tentative Map (Tentative Map CASP Density Conformance) plans for village centers and neighborhoods with a mix of multifamily and mixed-use housing, which offer TOD opportunity sites. MST recommends these village centers and neighborhoods have access to transit and active transportation infrastructure to support the Plan’s sustainability goals and lower GHG emissions. Please visit MST’s website to access MST’s TOD planning study:
https://mst.org/about-mst/planning-development/
As the CASP develops further, we ask that the City of Salinas continue to collaborate with MST to ensure that the specific plan area has adequate transit access. If you have any questions about the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-9288.

Sincerely,

Emma Patel
Planning Manager
iro^r]EREv-s,{.,rvAs
msr
rMrvs,r
October 5,2021
Jill Miller, Senior Planner
City of Salinas Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, Califomia 9390 I
RE: Central Area Specific Plan Tentative
Map Comments
Dear Ms. Miller:

Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) was contacted by Chris Patton, P.E., CPSWQ, Principal of RuggeriJensen-Azar (RJA) Engineers in regard to a tentative map for a proposed subdivision as part of the City of Salinas Central Area Specific Plan. Since this plan's concept, MST has undergone several planning initiatives, and is currently reevaluating its network through a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). The COA does not propose or plan for any new service through this proposed subdivision in the next 5 to l0 years without dedicated funding, however, the tentative map proposes four (4) new bus stops on new thoroughfares. MST staff analyzed these proposed bus stops against the MST Designing for Transit Guidelines (2020) manual and provides the following comments pertaining to the attached sheets provided by RIA Engineers:

Generally throughout, this plan proposes angled parking in most areas. Angled parking often creates difficulty for bus movements, since longer personal vehicles may impede travel and therefore affect scheduling, and have the propensity to cause collisions with buses due to reduced visibility when reversing.

MST requests that lane width on all thoroughfares shown as bus routes be 12 feet wide at minimum and contain no angled parking.

Sheet I l: Provide a minimum bus stop area dimension of 90 feet in length (inclusive of exit taper) and I I feet in width. Ensure bus stop landing pad is at least l0 feet away from any crosswalk.

Sheet 13: Corner radii are too small for bus turns, however, this plan proposes route that does not make tum. This is subject to further evaluation by MST. Provide a minimum of radius of 27 feet (30 feet is preferred) where Street U intersects Street A. Also provide a minimum bus stop area dimension of 90 feet in length (including one of fwo tapers) and I I feet in width. Ensure bus stop landing pad is at least 10 feet away from crosswalk.

Sheet l9: An island median appears to be proposed on the plan; MST requests that this proposed island not be constructed as it would impede bus maneuvers. Also, this intersection must include a control device, such as a stop sign or other traffic control device, in all directions to ensure safety ofbuses as they turn.

Sheet 2l : Provide a minimum bus stop area dimension of 90 feet in length (inclusive of exit taper) and I I feet in width. Ensure bus stop landing pad is at least l0 feet away from any crosswalk. Corner radii are too small for bus turns, however, this plan proposes route that does not make turn. This is subject to further evaluation by MST.

Provide a minimum of radius of 27 feet (30 feet is preferred) where Street T intersects Street S.

Advocating and delivering quality public transportatlon as a leader within our community and industry.

Trangt Dlstrlct Members Monbrey County. Carmel-by-the-Sea. Del Rey Oah . Gmzales. Greenfield . King City. Marina. Monterey Pacific Grore ' Salinas' &nd City. &aside . &ledad Admlnlstratiye 0lllces 19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940 px t -888-MST-BLS1 (t -888-678 -287 1). rax (B3t ) S99-3954 . wea mst.org a
a
a
a
a
As this plan develops further, please refer to MST's Designing for Transit Guidelines to ensure adequate bus stop geometrics as well as bus tuming radii and street width. If you have any questions about the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-5881.

Sloan Campi
Planning Manager
Attachments:
l. CASP Bus Stops Sheet Set as provided by RJA Engineering

2. Letter RE: Potential Bus Stop Locations Salinas Northeast Annexation Area (Dated March 2,2014) Serving Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties 24580 Silver Cloud Court Monterey, CA 93940
PHONE: (831) 647-9411 • FAX: (831) 647-8501
Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
June 5, 2024
Thomas Wiles, Senior Planner
[email protected]
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7206
SUBJECT: Salinas Central Area Specific Map Tentative Map 2021-001 Dear Mr. Wiles,
Thank you for providing the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (Air District) with the opportunity to comment on Salinas Central Area Specific Map Tentative Map 2021-001. Hanna Muegge, Air Quality Planner with MBARD, had previously reviewed and submitted comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project (dated August 11, 2020). MBARD would like to reemphasis the comments provided in that letter:

Air Quality
o Fugitive Dust Control
▪ Fugitive dust can be further mitigated as well as maintaining compliance with MBARD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 8.2 by implementing the following Best Management Practices as applicable:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. • Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph). • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. • Cover inactive storage piles.
• Maintain at least 2’0” of freeboard in haul trucks.
• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

Portable Construction Equipment
o Rule 201, Section 4.14
▪ Per Rule 201, Section 4.14.1 (10/15/2014) any stationary IC engine greater than 50 HP must be permitted by the Air District or registered with the California Air Resources Board. For Engine-Generator sets, the engine will have a different rating, normally higher than the rating of the generator output. Please consult with the Air District Engineering Division if there are any questions regarding the permitting process.

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
o Notification
▪ If project construction uses portable equipment registered with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), MBARD must be notified within two working days of commencing operations when a registered unit will be at a location for more than five days. Portable equipment not registered with CARB may be subject to MBARD permit requirements.

Green House Gas Emissions
o Infrastructure Electrification
▪ The Air District suggests using guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District for evaluating the project’s greenhouse gas emissions for construction emissions.

The Air District supports incorporating electric vehicle infrastructure goals in the project plan. To achieve further emission reduction of criteria pollutants, emissions and greenhouse gases, the Air District suggests including publicly available dual port Level 2 & DC fast-charge charging stations throughout the project area.

Hazardous Materials
o Asbestos Notification
▪ If any buildings are renovated or demolished as part of this project, Air District rules may apply. These include Rule 424, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Rule 439, Building Removals. Rule 424 contains the investigation and reporting requirements for asbestos which includes surveys and advanced notification on structures being renovated or demolished. Notification to the Air District is required at least ten days prior to renovation or demolition activities. Rule 424 could also apply if old underground piping or other asbestos containing construction materials are encountered during trenching activities. District Rule 439 prohibits the release of any visible emissions from building removals. Rules 424 and 439 can be found online athttps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/current-air-district-rules. Please contact Bronwyn Nielson, Air Quality Compliance Inspector, at (831) 718-8024 for more information regarding these rules.

Transportation/Traffic
o Traffic Emission Reduction
▪ In an effort to improve congestion and minimize traffic emissions, the Air District strongly supports the consideration of the following inclusions at street intersections surrounding the project site:
• Include roundabout design and construction as an alternative mitigation. • Include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) for existing or new signalized intersections.

For funding opportunities for congestion management projects, please contact Eli Lessman in the Planning Division at (831) 718-8029.

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Tentative Map 2021-001 for the Central Area Specific Plan.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (831) 718-8030 or [email protected].

Best Regards,
Tyrone Bell
Air Quality Planner I
cc: Rich Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
David Frisbey, Planning and Air Monitoring Manager
Shawn Boyle, Planning and Air Monitoring Supervisor
attachments: MBARD comment letter – August 11, 2020
24580 Silver Cloud Court
Monterey, CA 93940
PHONE: (831) 647-9411 • FAX: (831) 647-8501
Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
August 11, 2020
Community Development Department
ATTN: Jill Miller, Senior Planner
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Email: [email protected]
Re: City of Salinas Central Area Specific Plan DEIR
Dear Ms. Miller:

Thank you for providing the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (Air District) with the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced document. The Air District has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

3.1. AIR QUALITY
• Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: While traffic calming measuresin neighborhoods can improve public safety, the Air District encouragesthe City to implement Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction measuresto maximize emission reductions and for congestion management.

The Air District highly supports the inclusion of roundabouts and making the project plan area a bike- and ped-friendly community. If signalizing intersectionsis selected, then the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design should be employed. Local annual funding opportunitiesfrom the Air District are available for ATCS and roundabout design and construction projects.

Please contact Alan Romero, [email protected], for more information. • Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: The Air District supports incorporating electric vehicle infrastructure in the project plan area designs. To achieve further emission reduction of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Air District suggests including publically available dual port Level 2 & DC fast-charge charging stations throughout the project plan area. Local annual funding opportunitiesfrom the Air District are available for EV charging infrastructure. Please contact Alan Romero, [email protected], for more information. • The Air District prefersthat operational emissions be mitigated at the project level; however, since mitigation measures cannot reduce emissions below significance thresholds, the Air District requests that the City of Salinas cooperate with the Air District to develop off-site mitigation measures. Please contact David Frisbey at the Air District office at (831) 647-9411 or [email protected].

3.5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
• Mitigation Measure 3.5-1-3.5.3: Any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424. Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
Any load-bearing removal in the structures is defined as a demolition activity by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulation and District Rule 424. This activity must also be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Best Regards,
Hanna Muegge
Air Quality Planner
cc: Richard A. Stedman
David Frisbey
Page | 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2640 (N.C.S.)

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (DA 2020-001) (RELATED TO ER 2020- 001, SPEC 2013-001, RZ 2020-002)
WHEREAS, Brian Finegan, Esq. (representing multiple property owners and developers) has submitted applications for the Central Area Specific Plan project (Project), including requests for Specific Plan, Rezone, and Development Agreement approvals that would permit development of the approximately 760-acre project site shown in Exhibit A, herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas (hereinafter “City”), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) (collectively “CEQA”), has completed the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) [State Clearinghouse No. 2017091022] for the Central Area Specific Plan in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and agendized public hearing to consider possible recommendations to the City Council with respect to the Final EIR (ER 2020-001); the proposed Central Area Specific Plan (SPEC 2013-001); Rezone (RZ 2020-002); and the proposed Development Agreement (DA 2020-001); and WHEREAS, the Salinas Planning Commission weighed the evidence presented at said public hearing, including the staff report (and the project findings) which is on file at the Community Development Department, together with the record of environmental review including the Draft EIR, project findings, public comments on said document and responses thereto, the Final EIR (all of which were made publicly available consistent with state law prior to its public hearing and consideration of recommendations on the Project to the CityCouncil), and evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2020-005, the Salinas Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the CEQA findings, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2020-006, the Salinas Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Central Area Specific Plan (SPEC 2013-001), herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, and by so doing, recommends that the Central Area Specific Plan be utilized as the land use and zoning implementation document for the Project; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2020-007, the Salinas Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to rezone (RZ 2020-002) the subject site from New Urbanism Interim (NI) with a Specific Plan Overlay to Neighborhood Edge A and B (NE-A and NE-B)/Low Density Residential, Neighborhood General A, B and C (NG-A, NG-B, and NG-C)/Medium Density Residential, Village Center A (VC-A)/High Density Residential, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 7E191D11-B2E5-4E4D-ADF1-67011040AE9F Page | 2
Village Center B (VC-B)/High Density Residential and Mixed Use, as well as the Park (P), Open Space (OS) and Public/Semipublic Districts with Specific Plan Overlay District and Flood Overlay District, applied across the Specific Plan area as shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference; and applied across the Specific Plan area as shown in Exhibit K, incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2020-008, the Salinas Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a Development Agreement (DA 2019-001), herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020 the Salinas City Council held a duly noticed and agendized public hearing to consider the Final EIR (ER 2020-001); the proposed Central Area Specific Plan (SPEC 2013-001); Rezone (RZ 2020-002); and the proposed Development Agreement (DA 2020-001); and
WHEREAS, the Salinas City Council weighed the evidence presented at said public hearing, including the staff report which is on file at the City of Salinas Community Development Department, the project findings herein incorporated as Exhibit J, together with the record of environmental review including the Draft EIR, public comments on said document and responses thereto, the Final EIR (all of which were made publicly available consistent with state law prior to its public hearing and consideration of the Project), and evidence and public testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of time and place of hearing for recommending certification of the Final EIR and recommending approval of the Project, DA 2020-002, was given in the manner prescribed by the City; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted November 17, 2020, herein incorporated by reference, the City Council certified the Final EIR, adopted the CEQA findings, adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Project (which includes DA 2020-002); and
WHEREAS, the Salinas City Council has reviewed the proposed Development Agreement as shown in Exhibit L to determine its consistency with the following: California law; the goals, policies, and programs of the City of Salinas General Plan; the Salinas Municipal Code and all other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Salinas City Council; and the proposed Central Area Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Central Area Specific Plan contains modifications of standards contained in the City of Salinas Municipal Code that are applicable only within the Central Area Specific Plan boundary, and which will become effective upon the City Council’s approval of the Specific Plan and attached approvals; and
WHEREAS, certain mitigation measures in the City’s 2002 General Plan Final Program EIR and in the City’s 2007 Final Supplement for the General Plan Final Program EIR are still valid and applicable to the Project and are herein incorporated by reference.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7E191D11-B2E5-4E4D-ADF1-67011040AE9F Page | 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS, as follows:

SECTION 1. The Salinas City Council finds and declares that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Salinas City Council has been provided with, and has reviewed, the Final EIR for the project, the staff report for the Project, written and oral testimony regarding the Project, and other relevant evidence in the administrative record (collectively, the “Record of Proceedings”), and hereby provides notification that the Record of Proceedings is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Salinas, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901 SECTION 3. The Salinas City Council declares that it has been provided with and had reviewed the information contained in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, the evidence in the record, the staff report and recommendations.

SECTION 4. The Salinas City Council has been provided with, and has reviewed, the Project Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein by this reference, and other relevant evidence in the Record of Proceedings.

SECTION 5. The Development Agreement between the City of Salinas and the applicable property owners/developers attached hereto as Exhibit L, and all of its terms and conditions, is herein incorporated by reference, and is hereby approved.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the following summary of this ordinance to be published by one (1) insertion in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Salinas and hereby designated for that purpose by the Salinas City Council:
“The Salinas City Council has approved a Development Agreement between the City and multiple property owners/developers, with respect to the development of the Central Area Specific Plan, a 760 acre mixed use / residential New Urbanism project area bound by Boronda Road on the south, Russell Road and Old Stage Road on the north, Natividad Road on the west and Constitution Boulevard on the east in the City of Salinas. This Ordinance goes into effect 30 days after adoption. For additional detail concerning this amendment, contact the Community Development Department, 65 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93901.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7E191D11-B2E5-4E4D-ADF1-67011040AE9F Page | 4
This ordinance was introduced and read on the 17th day of November 2020 and passed and adopted on the 1st day of December 2020 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Davis, De La Rosa, McShane, Villegas and Mayor Pro Tem Cromeenes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
________________________________
Christie Cromeenes, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
List of Attachments (Incorporated by Reference):

Exhibit A Project Site Location Map
Exhibit B Central Area Specific Plan with Errata Sheet
Exhibit C Notice of Preparation
Exhibit D Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (link) Exhibit E Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices (link)
Exhibit F Notice of Completion
Exhibit G Final Program Environmental Impact Report
Exhibit H CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit J Project Findings
Exhibit K Rezone Map
Exhibit L Development Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7E191D11-B2E5-4E4D-ADF1-67011040AE9F Exhibit A Project Site Location Map
Exhibit B
Draft Central Area Specific Plan with Errata Sheet
Link to public review draft:
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/community-development/documents-publicreview#brg_acor_accordion-panel_pane_1-1 Errata Sheet to the Draft Central Area Specific Plan
October 21, 2020
Introduction and Content
The Errata sheet consists of minor revisions to the Draft Specific Plan providing clarifications, some minor modifications as well as minor staff edits. The revisions to the Draft Specific do not change the intent or content of the document. The Errata sheet is in addition to typographical, re-ordering or similar non-substantive errors not listed.

Proposed changes are identified in Table 1, Errata Changes. Text deletions are shown with strikeout font and additions are shown with underlined font. Specific Plan table and figure modifications are listed and shown following Table 1 in the order that they are referenced in Table 1.

Upon final production of the Specific Plan, graphics would be included to the final document layout in various locations, illustrating concepts discussed in the Specific Plan. These graphics do not change the intent or content of the document. Such graphics may include but are not limited to: examples of pervious driveways or other bio retention facilities, diagrams of housing types, or picture of similar development.

TABLE 1: Errata Changes
Section Page Modification

2.3 25 Table 2-2 updated to show correct NG-C commercial square footage

2.5.3 27 Text updated to show correct NG-C commercial square footage:

Neighborhood serving mixed use retail and office uses are limited to a maximum of 2,000 square feet per net acre within this district. This district will allow between 465 and 532 dwelling units and up to 99,900 95,000 square feet of mixed use office and retail uses built out with the minimum number of residential units.

3.4.7 47 Text updated to clarify description of Village Center B:

The minimum average residential density within this classification shall not be less than 24 dwelling units per net residential acre or more than 31 dwelling units per net residential acre. The maximum average floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.85 for the combination of commercial and residential uses shown within this district. A building within the VC-B district may contain 0 to 40 dwelling units per net acre. provided the combined commercial floor area and residential floor area within a development application shall not exceed the allowable FAR. .

3.5 48-55 Table 3-1 and footnotes updated for internal document consistency

3.5 55-65 Table 3-2 and footnotes updated for internal document consistency and and to accommodate higher densities for commercial conversion

3.7.6 68 Text updated to clarify application requirements demonstrating proof of conformance with densities:

Applicant Must Provide Proof of Conformance
The application for a tentative subdivision map shall provide include a chart demonstrating that the total number of proposed dwelling units, excluding ADUs, within each of the Zoning Districts within each block of the Tentative Map, divided by the total net residential acreage within each Zoning District within each block of the Tentative Map, will meet the density requirements of Section 3.8.3 of this Specific Plan and as described in Zoning Code Section 37-30.460.

Applicants The application shall be consistent with Appendix G and Chapter 3 of this Specific Plan.shall use Appendix G and with Chapter 3 of this Specific Plan in preparing the chart. The net acreage of each zoning district shown must substantially match the acreage shown in Appendix G and with Chapter 3 of this Specific Plan. . The Chart shall also demonstrate conformance with the minimum and maximum densities and density percentages required in the 2002 General Plan.

3.8.4 70 Table in Section 3.8.4 deleted. Text updated simplifying and explaining implementation of commercial conversion:

The central portion of the North of Boronda FGA proposed Central Area Specific Plan has a General Plan allocation of approximately 489,700 square feet of commercial and mixed use (including Village Center [VC] residential). The Central Area Specific Plan permits the conversion of up to 214, 000 square feet of commercial floor area to residential use on thebasis of 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area for one residential dwelling unit, without further CEQA review. These dwelling units can be sited within the Village Center districts. Conversion of this commercial floor area to residential dwelling units is subject to the approval of the property owners of the Village Center (VC) area and the City Planner.

The use of converted units will not count toward the overall high density unit count or the overall medium density unit count for the Specific Plan. However, the General Plan required density mix shall still be met. The increased density, if used, is consistent with the New Urbanism goal of promoting a thriving Village Center.

3.8.6 71 Renumbered to Section 3.8.5 to reflect the above change, all subsequent numbering in the following sections updated accordingly.

Text updates to clarify flex use building and correct internal references:

The Buildings buildings in the NG-C, VC-A and VC-B districts are allowed to may be any combination of office, retail, service, public and/or residential uses (subject to approval by the City Planner), provided the minimum number of residential units per net acre required in Section 3.9.3 3.8.2 and 3.9.2 remain in the zoning district and the maximum residential units allowed in Section 3.193 3.8.2 and

3.9.2 are not exceeded on the blocks shown on the tentative map application within those districts and also meet the minimum and maximum average densities and density percentage requirements of the General Plan..

Appendix K various Revise street sections to be consistent with text in section 8.5.1

3.5 58 Revise maximum site coverage from 100% to 98% in the VC (Table 3- 2)

7.5.1 170 Revise text to match updated NPDES Permit:
• Driveway designDirect roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse
• Landscape Feature(s) DesignDirect roof runoff onto vegetated areas safely away from building foundations and footings, consistent with California building code
• Downspout RoutingDirect runoff from sidewalks. Walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas safely away from building foundations and footings, consistent with California building code • Amended SoilsDirect runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas safely away from building foundations and footings, consistent with California building code • Construct bike lanes, driveways, uncovered parking lots, sidewalks, walkways and patios with permeable surfaces More features may be required as the size/complexity of each site increased.

6.3.1 143 Revise Table 6-4 with updated student generation rates in accordance with FEIR eratta changes.

Table 2-2 Summary Land Use Plan
Land Use
Approximate
Acreage
Projected Dwelling Units/Mixed Use Commercial
Square Feet
NE-A 108.59 652
NE-B 89.33 715
NG-A 56.94 512
NG-B 31.46 315
NG-C 33.23 532 du/95,000 sq.ft.

VC-A and B 44.43 1,185 du/389,800 sq.ft.

Residential and Village Center
Subtotal of Acreage.
363.98 Maximum - 3,911 du/489,700 sq.ft.

Elementary School #1 18.00
Elementary School #2 12.00
Middle School 18.00
Neighborhood and Small Parks 44.06
Open Space 104.29
Public Facilities/Utilities 18.65
Circulation/Roadways 181.46
Total 760.44
Table 3-1 Use Classifications
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Residential Uses - Note (37)
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Day Care Homes, Family - Large
(7 or more) - Notes (1), (2)

P P P P P P P
Day Care Homes, Family - Small
(6 or less) - Note (2)

P P P P P P P
Home Occupations - Note (4) P P P P P P P
Interim Housing - Note (3) NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Manufactured Housing P P P CUP CUP NP NP
Mobile home Park NP NP CUP CUP CUP NP NP
Multiple Detached Dwellings NP NP SPR SPR SPR CUP CUP
Residential Care Facilities –
Large

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Residential Care Facilities –
Small Note (5)

P P P P P CUP CUP
Residential Service Facilities -
Note (3)

NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Single Room Occupancies -
Note (7)

NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Courtyard Apartments - Note
(35)

NP NP SPR SPR SPR NP NP
Duplex Dwellings NP NP SPR SPR SPR NP NP
Multifamily Dwellings NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Custom Detached/Attached
Dwellings

SPR/NP SPR/NP SPR/NP SPR/SPR SPR/SPR NP/SPR NP/SPR
Mixed Use and Flex Use
Mixed Use Buildings - Notes (8),
(9), (15), (31), (39)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Flex Use Buildings - Notes (8),
(9), (15), (31), (39)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Single-Family Dwellings
Single-Family Attached
Dwellings

NP NP P SPR SPR SPR NP
Green Court Dwellings - Note
(24)

NP NP P P P NP NP
Lane Dwellings - Note (24) NP NP P P P NP NP
Row Home Detached Dwellings
- Note (24)

NP NP P P P NP NP
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Carriage Apartments) - Notes
(6), (24)

P P P P P NP NP
Single-Family Detached
Dwellings

P P P P P NP NP
Public and Semipublic Uses
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Clubs and Lodges - Note (18) CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Convalescent Hospitals/
Nursing Homes

NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Cultural Institutions NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Day Care Centers NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Government Offices/Library NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Hospitals NP NP CUP CUP CUP SPR SPR
Mural Exhibits - Note (16) SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR
Park and Recreation Facilities SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR SPR Parking Lots and Structures -
Note (21)

NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Public Safety Facilities CUP CUP SPR SPR SPR CUP CUP
Public Utility Service Yards NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Religious Assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Schools - Public NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
School - Private CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Schools - Trade - Notes (10),
(34)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Telecommunication Facilities -
Major Notes (19), (32)

NP NP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Telecommunication Facilities -
Minor Note (19), (32)

P P P P P P P
Utilities - Major - Notes (26),
(32)

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Retail and Office Uses (Note 41)
Adult Entertainment Facilities -
Note (27)

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Ambulance Services - Note (38) NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Animal Boarding - Note (38) NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Animal Grooming NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Animal Hospitals NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Animal Retail Sales NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Antique and Collectible Shops NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Artists’ Studios NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Automated Teller Machines
(ATM’s) Indoor - Note (28)

NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Automated Teller Machines
(ATMs) Outdoor - Note (25)

NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Bakeries - Retail NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Bakeries - Wholesale NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Bars - Note (18) NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Bed and Breakfast NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Building Materials and Services
- Note (38)

NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP
Catering Services - Notes (18)
(22)

NP NP NP NP SPR SPR SPR
Commercial Filming NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Commercial Recreation and
Entertainment - Notes (9), (18)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Convenience Stores Without
Gas Pumps - Notes (10), (18),
(25), (38)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Convenience Stores with Gas
Pumps - Notes (10), (11), (18),
(23), (25), (33) and (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Entertainment, Live (Excluding
Adult Entertainment) - Note
(15)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Equipment Sales, Services, and
Rentals

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Financial Services - Notes (25),
(28)

NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Food and Beverage Sales -
Notes (18), (25), (40)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Fortunetelling NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP
Funeral Services - Note (17) NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP
Hotels and Motels - Note (7) NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP
Extended Stay Hotels and
Motels - Note (7)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Kiosks - Permanent - Note (36) NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP
Kiosks - Temporary or Semipermanent - Note (36)NP NP NP NP CUP CUP CUP Laboratories NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Laundries – Limited NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Laundries - Unlimited NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Live-work Units – Note (20) NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Maintenance and Repair
Services - Major

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Maintenance and Repair
Services - Minor - Notes (10),
(38)

NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Marine Sales and Services NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Nurseries - Notes (10), (29),
(38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP CUP
Office - Business and
Professional

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Office - Medical and Dental NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Pawn Shops NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Personal Improvement Services NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Personal Services NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Pharmacy - Note (25) NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Printing and Publishing –
Limited

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Printing and Publishing –
Unlimited

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Recreational Vehicle Parks NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Recycling Facilities See Zoning Code Section 37-50.210
Restaurants Without drivethrough or drive-in facilities - Note (18)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Restaurants With drive-through
or drive-in facilities - Notes
(18), (25), (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Retail Sales Without drivethrough or drive-in facilities - Note (18)

NP NP NP NP CUP SPR SPR
Retail Sales With drive-through
or drive-in facilities - Note (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Secondhand or Consignment
Stores

NP NP NP NP NP NP CUP
Service Stations - Notes (10),
(11), (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Shopping Centers Without gas
stations - Notes (10), (18), (23),
(38)

NP NP NP NP NP SPR NP
Shopping Centers With gas
stations - Notes (10), (11),
(18),(38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Speculative Buildings - Note
(12)

NP NP NP NP NP SPR SPR
Tattoo and/or Body Piercing
Parlors

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Vehicle Repair Facilities - Major
- Note (38)

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B Vehicle Repair Facilities - Minor
Note (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Vehicle Related Retail Sales and
Services

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Vehicle Storage NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Vehicle Washing - Notes (10),
(11), (25), (33), (38)

NP NP NP NP NP CUP NP
Warehousing and Storage –
Limited

NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Wholesale Distribution NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Industrial Uses
Industrial Complexes NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Industry – limited NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Accessory Uses and Structures - Note (13)
Animals-Domestic - Note (30) P P P P P P P
Utilities-Minor - Note (32) P P P P P P P
Temporary Uses - Note (14) TULP TULP TULP TULP TULP TULP TULP Nonconforming Uses and Structures
See Section 37-50.160: Non-conforming uses and structures, in the Salinas Zoning Code P = Permitted Use
NP = Not Permitted Use
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
SPR = Site Plan Review Required
TULP = Temporary Use of Land Permit Required
CASP = Central Area Specific Plan
“See Section 37-xx.xxx”, refers to the adopted 2006 Salinas Zoning Code at the time of the project review, included as Appendix S of this Specific Plan.
(1) See Section 37-50.120: Large Family Day Care Homes. (2) Small and Large Family Day Care Homes are permitted uses in all districts when the principle use is a residential dwelling unit.
(3) In the VC and NG-C districts, residential service facilities and interim housing serving six or fewer people are allowed with a SPR or as otherwise provided by state law. Such facilities shall be designed to accommodate a group living environment.
(4) See Section 37-50.100: Home Occupations. In all districts, home occupations are permitted uses when the principal use is a residential dwelling unit.
(5) Small residential care facilities (6 or fewer patients) are a permitted use when the principal use is a residential dwelling unit or as otherwise provided by state law.
(6) See Section 37-50.250: Accessory Dwelling Units of the Salinas Zoning Code. A Carriage Apartment shall be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit. See Table 3-2 of this Specific Plan, Carriage Apartments, Footnote (4) for further requirements applicable to Carriage Apartments.
(7) See Section 37-50.270: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing. (8) Commercial uses in Mixed Use and Flex Use buildings are subject to the approval of a SPR in both VC districts and may be considered in the NG-C district subject to approval of a CUP. The following additional requirements shall apply:
a. Mixed use and flex use floor area may be provided on the first floor of any building in the VC-A and VC-B zones, and if occupied with a non-residential use shall qualify as acceptable space to meet the Note 8b requirements below.

Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B b. A minimum of 600 lineal feet of the first floor frontage of the buildings (described in Note 8a above) shall be restricted to non-residential uses.
c. The 600 lineal foot frontage requirement of non-residential uses (described in Note 8b above) shall not restrict the approval of or the allowed uses in the buildings (described in Note 8a above) until such time that the frontage remaining to be permitted (described in Note 8a above) is equal to the required 600 lineal feet of non-residential uses, minus the frontages (described in Note 8a above) already rented to non-residential uses. d. The ground floor Flex Use spaces (described in Note 8a above) may change from residential to non-residential uses and back to a residential use upon the City Planner’s approval of a SPR authorizing the change. However, a minimum of 600 lineal feet of the approximately 1,800 lineal feet of frontage (described in Note 8a above) shall be offered for rent exclusively to and occupied by non-residential uses. e. The requirement for a minimum of 600 lineal feet of frontage of non-residential occupancies on the first floor of the buildings (described in Note 8a above) may be reduced subject to the approval of a Minor Revision of this Specific Plan in accordance with Section 9.7 of this Specific Plan where the applicant has demonstrated to satisfaction of the City Planner that sufficient reasonable efforts were made to rent the space to non-residential uses and that insufficient tenants were secured to the fill the required 600 lineal feet of frontage. f. The first floor of Flex Use buildings must have a minimum of 14 feet between the first floor and the second floor plate of the building.
g. Flex Use buildings may have residential and/or non-residential uses located on any floor of the building. h. The conversion of residential uses to non-residential uses, or vice versa, in a Flex Use building, is subject to approval of a SPR in the VC districts and a CUP in the NG-C district unless otherwise approved by the City Planner as provided for in Note 8(d) above.
i. The first floor façade of Flex Use buildings must be designed and engineered to allow the provision of shop doors, display windows and signage spaces above the first floor doors and windows to accommodate non-residential uses.
(9) Commercial recreation and entertainment uses less than two thousand square feet in floor area and fitness center uses less than five thousand square feet are permitted with a SPR in the VC-B district and on planning sub area 176 as shown in Appendix G.
(10) See Section 37-50.170: Outdoor Storage and Display. (11) See Section 37-50.260: Service Stations, Vehicle Repair, and Vehicle Washing. (12) See Section 37-50.280: Speculative Buildings.
(13) Accessory Uses and Structures will require approval of a SPR or a CUP, if a SPR or CUP is required for the principal use. (14) See Section 37-50.300: Temporary Use of Land.
(15) A Live Entertainment Permit shall be issued for live entertainment uses in the VC districts in accordance with Section 37-60.490: Minor Conditional Use Permit - Live Entertainment Permit. (16) See Section 37-50.150: Mural Exhibits.
(17) Funeral services with crematories shall be subject to approval of a CUP. (18) See Section 37-50.030: Alcohol License Review.
(19) See Section 37-50.290: Telecommunications Facilities: Only stealth telecommunication facilities shall be allowed in the Plan Area except as otherwise mandated by federal law.
(20) See Section 37-50.130: Live-Work Units: Live-work units may only be located in the NG-C and Village Center districts. (21) Does not apply to the parking required to serve the use. It shall apply only to stand-alone parking facilities. (22) Catering is only permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant in the VC-A, VC-B and NG-C districts. The overnight outdoor parking or outdoor storage of catering vehicles in the Plan Area is prohibited. (23) Convenience stores with gas pumps (including sales, display, storage, restrooms, etc.) are limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet of gross floor area and are allowed only in the VC-A district adjacent to E. Boronda Road. (24) See Appendix B, Definitions and Chapter 4 of this Specific Plan for a description of this use. (25) Drive-through and drive-in uses shall not be permitted except as otherwise provided for in this section subject to approval of a CUP. In this regard, a maximum of two drive-through food/drink uses, one drive-through pharmacy use, one drive-through bank use and one other drive-through use will be permitted in the VC-A district adjacent to E.

Boronda Road (Planning Subarea 176 as shown in Appendix G) subject to the approval of a CUP as noted previously. (26) The expansion of the PG& E substations, water wells, water storage, water treatment and above ground conveyance facilities (e.g. booster and pumping stations), drainage, and flood control facilities may be permitted with the approval of a CUP as provided below. All utilities shall comply with the City’s current NPDES permit. a. Expansion of the PG&E substation near Hemingway Drive and Russell Road is permitted subject to approval of a CUP, provided a 50-foot wide landscape easement surrounds the existing and new facilities on all sides. The Landscape Easement shall be planted with evergreen shrubs which a landscape architect certifies will grow to a height of 8-feet or more and evergreen trees which a landscape architect certifies will grow to 70-feet or more.

Land Use Classification NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B The shrubs must be planted along all of a screen wall (masonry) at 5-foot spacing and the trees must be planted 15-feet on center side to side and front to back and said landscaping shall be maintained in good health by a LLMD and replaced as needed by a LLMD, all at PG&E’s expense. The expansion of the P G & Substation will require the incorporation of the above noted landscape buffer, decorative masonry screen walls and other architectural features as required by the City Planner to ensure the facility complements the adjacent uses. b. All Cal Water and ALCO water wells, water storage, water treatment and above ground conveyance facilities (e.g. booster and pumping stations) within the Specific Plan area will be designed to blend with adjacent uses through the use of elements such as architectural features, landscaping, and decorative masonry screen walls. In this regard, the Cal Water well, storage, and water treatment facilities and any above ground conveyance facility (ALCO booster stations) will require the City’s approval of a CUP for each facility prior to construction. This CUP process will include the review and approval of details on the decorative masonry (minimum 8 feet in height) screen walls, landscaping, noise attenuation, use of hazardous materials, if any, and drainage details (including water flows in the event of the malfunction of the well or treatment facility) and other architectural features to blend with and ensure compatibility with surrounding development. Minimum required setbacks will be maintained between infiltration features/practices and water wells in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Development Standards (SWDS), stated on page 22, Table 1 of the City of Salinas SWDS. (27) See Section 37-50.020: Adult entertainment facilities are not permitted in the Plan Area. Adult bookstores shall be subject to the same supplemental regulations applicable to adult entertainment facilities. (28) ATM facilities that are located entirely within a building shall be a permitted use in the NG-C and both VC districts. (29) Nursery uses are only permitted as an accessory use in the VC-A district on Planning Subareas adjacent to E. Boronda Road.
(30) See Salinas Zoning Code for regulations applicable to domestic animals or animal-keeping. (31) In Mixed Use and Flex Use Buildings, which allow residential uses, vehicle-related uses including repair, sales, service, storage, and washing; animal sales and services; maintenance and repair services; pawn shops; tattoo and/or body piercing parlors, industrial uses and other uses deemed inappropriate or incompatible by the City Planner with the residential uses in the same building shall not be allowable uses. In Mixed Use and Flex Use buildings allowing residential uses, commercial uses shall be limited to retail, restaurants, offices, services, and similar pedestrianoriented uses, which are deemed by the City Planner to be compatible with the residential uses located in the same building.
(32) Utilities shall not unreasonably interfere with the use, enjoyment, or aesthetics of adjacent uses. (33) Vehicle washing and vehicle repair may be considered as an accessory use to a service station use only in the VC-A district adjacent to E. Boronda Road, subject to the approval of a CUP. (34) Truck and heavy equipment driving schools shall not be permitted in the Plan Area. (35) See Appendix B, Definitions and Chapter 4 of this Specific Plan for a description of the Courtyard Apartment. (36) Permanent and temporary kiosks that are designed and included as part of a larger development review application for another use (such as a shopping center, retail, or restaurant use) shall be subject to the same development review process as required for that use. Kiosks along the streets in the two VC Districts and in the NG-C district are permitted subject to approval of a CUP.
(37) Dwellings located along the south side of the northerly greenway and the north side of the southerly greenway streets shall front onto these streets and shall not have driveways, which access on to or off of these streets. Alley entrances serving dwellings abutting these streets shall not access the northerly and southerly greenway streets. (38) Notated uses may only be placed in the VC-A District adjacent to E. Boronda Road. See Section 4.3.4 (a) of this Specific Plan.
(39) Only Flex Use Space is allowed on the first floor of buildings which front on the street in VC districts and the east side of the southernmost Village Green. No drive-through lanes, gas pumps or car wash facilities may be permitted in these areas.
(40) A site for a potential full service anchor grocery store has been identified in the Village Center (planning subarea 176) near the northeast corner of Boronda Road and Hemingway Drive. A maximum of one anchor full service grocery store or a similar size anchor store is permitted within the Plan Area and it must be located in the Village Center on planning subarea 176. A full size grocery store typically has approximately 55,000 square feet of floor area. Regional-serving “big box” retail uses are prohibited in the Plan Area.

Table 3-2 Use Development Regulations
Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Minimum Average
D/U
Per Net Acre Per
Block Per Zone –
Note 23
Residential 5 7 8 9 14 18 24
Maximum
Average D/U Per
Net Acre Per Block
Per Zone – Note
23 Residential 6 8 9 10 16 24 31
Minimum Lot Size
and Area per
Dwelling Unit –
Notes
22 and 23
Residential and
Non-Residential
- - - - - - -
Maximum Floor
Area Per Net Acre
(FAR)
Non-residential - - - - 0.42 0.65 0.85
Minimum Lot
Frontage (Feet)
Residential 35 35 25 25 25 25 25
Minimum Lot
Width (Feet)
Courtyard
Apartments
NP NP 130 130 130 NP NP
Interior Lots Duplex Dwellings NP NP 55 55 55 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 30 30 30 NP NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 130 130 130
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 130 130 130
Other Uses 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Row Home
Detached Dwellings
NP NP 25 25 25 NP NP
Single-family
Dwellings –
Attached
NP NP 25 25 25 25 NP
Notes (1), (2), (3),
(8)
Single-family
Dwellings –
Detached
50 45 40 35 30 NP NP
Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Minimum Lot
Width (Feet)
Courtyard
Apartments
Not permitted on corner lots
Corner Lots Duplex Dwellings NP NP 60 60 60 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 35 35 35 NP NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 130 130 130
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 130 130 130
Other Uses 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Row Home
Dwellings
NP NP NP 30 30 30 NP
Single-family
Dwellings –
Attached
NP NP NP 30 30 30 NP
Notes (1) and, (2),
(3), (8)
Single-family
DwellingsDetached
55 50 45 40 35 NP NP
Minimum Lot
Depth (Feet) -
Notes (3), (8) and
(10)
Courtyard
Apartments
NP NP 120 115 110 110 NP
Duplex Dwellings NP NP 120 120 120 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 95 95 95 NP NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 120 120 120
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 120 120 120
Other Uses 130 125 120 120 120 120 120
Row Home
Dwellings
NP NP 120 115 110 110 NP
Single-family
Dwellings -
Attached
NP NP NP 115 115 115 NP
Single-family
Dwellings -
Detached
130 125 120 120 120 NP NP
Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Minimum Front
Yard Setback
(Feet)
Courtyard
Apartments
NP NP 20 15 10 0 NP
If alley loaded
garage.

Duplex Dwellings NP NP 20 15 10 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 5 5 5 NP NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Other Uses 30 25 20 15 10 0 0
Row Home
Dwellings
NP NP 15 10 5 5 NP
Single-family
Dwellings -
Attached
NP NP NP 15 10 0 NP
Notes - (3), (10),
(20)
Single-family
Dwellings -
Detached
30 25 20 15 10 NP NP
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
(Feet)
Courtyard
Apartments
NP NP 5 5 5 5 NP
Interior Lots Duplex Dwellings NP NP 5 5 5 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 5 5 5 NP NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Other Uses NP NP 5 5 5 5 5
Row Home
Dwellings
NP NP NP 1.5 1.5 1.5 NP
Notes - (2), (3), (6)
and (20)
Single-family
Dwellings -
Attached
NP NP NP 0 0 0 NP
Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Single-family
Dwellings -
Detached
5 5 5 5 5 NP NP
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
(Feet) Street Side
of
Courtyard
Apartments
Not permitted on corner lots
Corner Lots Duplex Dwellings NP NP 10 10 10 NP NP
Lane Home &
Green Court
Dwellings
NP NP 10 10 10 5 NP
Mixed & Flex Use
Buildings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Multifamily
Dwellings
NP NP NP NP 0 0 0
Other Uses 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Row Home
Dwellings
NP NP NP 10 10 5 NP
Single-family
Dwellings -
Attached
NP NP NP 10 10 5 NP
Notes - (3), (6),
(15)
Single-family
Dwellings -
Detached
10 10 10 10 10 NP NP
Maximum
Allowable
Impervious
Coverage
(Percentage of
Site)-
Note (10)
Site Coverage 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 95% 100%
Maximum Height
in Habitable
Stories – Note
(14), (24)
All 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
Alley Loaded
Garage Setback
from Center of
Alley - Note (3)
All 15 feet
Rear yard setback
– Principle
All 30 feet from the centerline of the alley
Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Structure with
alley
Front Yard
Setback to Street
Loaded Garage
All See Note 10
Distance Between
Structures
All 10 Feet
Rear Yard Setback
for Dwellings
without Alleys
All 20 Feet
Rear and Side
Yard Setback for
Street Loaded
Garage in Rear
Yard
All Minimum 5 feet to rear and side property lines
Minimum 25 feet to back of walk
Carriage
Apartments
All See Notes 4 and 13
Minimum
Bedrooms, as a
Percent of total
dwelling units in a
multifamily
project
All -
See Note 17
Usable Open
Space per
Dwelling Unit –
Minimum
All See Table 3-3 of this Specific Plan
Stormwater and
Water Quality
Management
All See Chapter 7 of this Specific Plan
Landscaping -
Note (21)
All See Salinas Zoning Code Article V, Division 4: Landscaping and Irrigation
Fences, Walls, and
Hedges - Note (22)
All See Table 3-1, footnote 26a and Section 4.11 of this Specific Plan and Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.090:

Fences, Walls and Hedges
Off-Street Parking,
Loading and
Outdoor Lighting -
Notes (9), (10),
(11), and (12)
All See Appendix E of this Specific Plan and Salinas Zoning Code Article V, Division 2: Parking, Loading, and Outdoor Lighting.

Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
Driveway and
Corner Visibility
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.460: Driveway and Corner Visibility.

Signs - Note (22) All See Salinas Zoning Code Article V, Division 3: Signs Outdoor Facilities,
including outdoor
seating
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.170: Outdoor
Storage and Display.

Accessory Uses
and Structures
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.010: Accessory Uses and Structures.

Screening of
Mechanical
Equipment
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.240: Screening of Mechanical Equipment.

Recycling and
Solid Waste
Disposal
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.200: Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Regulations
Performance
Standards
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.180: Performance Standards.

Planned Unit
Development
All See Salinas Zoning Code Article 6, Division 13: Planned Unit Development Permits.

Nonconforming
Uses and
Structures
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.160:

Nonconforming Uses and Structures.

Recreational
Vehicles,
Prohibited
Vehicles, and
Equipment
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.190: Recreational Vehicles, Prohibited Vehicles, and Equipment Parking and Storage.

Vehicle Trip
Reduction
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.330: Vehicle Trip Reduction.

Swimming Pools,
Spas and Hot Tubs
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.010 (k): Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs.

Accessory
Dwelling Units
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.250: Accessory Dwelling Units
Temporary Use of
Land
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.300: Temporary Use of Land
Condominium
Conversions
All See Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.050: Condominium Conversions
Notes and Additional Requirements
CASP = Central Area Specific Plan
“See Section 37-xx.xxx”, refers to the adopted Salinas Zoning Code included as Appendix S of this Specific Plan. (1) In order to improve the mix and massing on each block and provide a wider range of dwelling unit sizes and prices, each zoning district on each block in the NE-A, NE-B, NG-A and NG-B districts should contain a mix of lot widths and dwelling Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
unit sizes. The long sides of each block within the NE-A, NE-B, NG-A and NG-B Zoning Districts shall contain a mix of at least three (3) lot widths, with the middle width lot at least 5-feet wider than the smallest lot and five feet (5’) narrower than the width of the largest width lot (i.e. 50-feet, 55-feet and 60-feet wide) on that side of that block. (2) On the side where a Row Home or Single-family attached dwelling (Townhouse dwelling) abuts another dwelling type or use, the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 5-feet. (3) Lane Home and Green Court Dwellings.
a. Lane Home dwellings back onto an alley and front onto a common area easement, which must be a minimum of 20’ wide and said common area runs between two public streets. b. Green Court Dwellings back onto an alley and front onto three sides of a common Green (minimum 30 feet deep by 60 feet wide) with a public street on the fourth side. Since Lane and Green Court dwellings are located on lots which front a common area, the lot depth shall be measured from the edge of the common area easement (back of sidewalk) to the center of the alley behind the dwelling. The front yard setback for these dwelling types shall be measured from the edge of the common area easement (back of sidewalk) to the main dwelling. The side yard setback for these dwelling types, which sides onto a public street, shall be a minimum of 10 feet, otherwise shall be 5 feet.
(4) See Section 37-50.250: Accessory Dwelling Units. A Carriage Apartment shall be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit except that:
a. The Carriage Apartment must be located on a minimum forty-five (45) foot wide lot above an alley-served three car garage, both the unit and the garage shall have access to the alley. b. A Carriage Apartment over an alley served garage shall only be a permitted use on lots with a single-family detached dwelling unit as the primary use and with at least a two-car garage for the principal residence, plus at least a one car garage for the Carriage Apartment. The Carriage Apartment is a permitted use on all such lots. c. The maximum floor area may be up to 800 square feet for a studio and one-bedroom Carriage Apartment and may be up to 1,100 square feet for a two (2) or three (3) bedroom Carriage Apartment. d. See Chapter 4 of this Specific Plan for design standards for the Carriage Apartments. (5) Minimum lot sizes may be reduced when the exclusive use of such lots is intended for utility substations, pumping stations, and other similar facilities. Additionally, minimum lot sizes may be reduced in conjunction with shopping centers and office complexes where two or more separate lots would be created and be subject to a reciprocal agreement utilizing shared parking, landscaping, and related facilities. In all cases, it shall be demonstrated that the goals of the Zoning District can be achieved and that the public health, safety, and general welfare will be maintained. (6) If there is a 30-foot wide alley easement along the side of the lot, the minimum side setback to the dwelling shall be 20 feet measured from the center line of the alley. The minimum setback to an alley served garage shall be 15 feet measured from the center line of the alley.
(7) Alleys must have a minimum of 20 feet of open pavement width including the curbs, plus 5 feet of landscaping on each side of the alley (except at the driveway entries to a garage, carport, or parking). The pavement width is measured to the back of the continuous roll or flush curb.
(8) Minimum lot widths and minimum lot depths are measured in conformance with the Salinas Zoning Code, except the minimum lot depth is measured from the right-of-way (street property line) in front of the dwelling unit or nonresidential building to the centerline of the standard 30-foot wide minimum alley easement (20’ paved vehicle access with 5’ landscape plnaters on both sides) or the edge of the ROW for a standard 30-foot wide public alley or to the rear property line if there is no alley.
(9) Parking, loading and outdoor lighting shall be in accordance with City Zoning Code Article V, Division 2: Parking, Loading, and Outdoor Lighting, except the following shall supersede the requirements of Table 37-50.100 Schedule A: Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces:

In both VC districts and the NG-C districts, the parking requirement may be met by a combination of on-site parking, plus the on-street parking on the streets abutting the building’s property as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.

In the two VC districts and the NG-C districts, the parking requirement shall be:
a) 2 spaces per DU, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sf. of Commercial floor Area. b) Minimum 50% on-site parking - Maximum 50% on-street for VC districts. c) Minimum 75% on-site parking – Maximum 25% on-street for the NG-C disctrict. 10) Garages and driveways serving single-family residential uses are subject to the following:

Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
a) All front-loaded garages accessed by a driveway from a public street instead of a rear alley must be set back at least twenty five (25) feet from the street property line and additionally shall be set back one (1) foot behind the street façade of the principal dwelling for each two foot of garage width (i.e. 1 car garage additional setback is 5 feet, a 2 car garage additional setback is 10 feet, and a 3 car garage additional setback is 15 feet). See below for further regulations applicable to three car garages. In no case shall a street-loaded garage have less than a 20 foot minimum driveway length (as measured from the street property line). b) All garages including street-loaded shall have roll-up doors. c) In order to maximize the landscaping in the front yard setback, the driveway from the street property line to the front of the garage (for street-loaded garages) shall not exceed the maximum width of the garage or 20 feet, whichever is less.
d) The driveway from the back of the public sidewalk to a street-loaded garage shall be made of turf blocks, or a similar large cavity porous material, set on rock or gravel sub-base between 6 inch wide flush vertical curbs and the driveway must be irrigated and must allow irrigated vegetation in the driveway surface and allow percolation of rain water to occur within the driveway, with ADA compliant design, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
e) The edges of the driveway shall be a minimum of six (6) feet from the side property line to the driveway’s 6-inchwide curbs. The maximum driveway width at the street right-of-way line shall be 16 feet for a two-car garage and 10 feet for a one-car garage except as otherwise provided in this Specific Plan. The maximum width of the driveway may increase to 18-feet for a three-car garage. City standards apply to driveway aprons. f) Corner lot side street-loaded garages must be set back 25-feet from the street property line. g) Street loaded swing in garages are not allowed.
h) Street loaded garages located in the rear yard of the home (behind or to the rear of the dwelling) shall be placed a minimum of 5-feet from the rear and side property lines. i) For single-family detached dwellings, the street-loaded (front or corner side yard) garage shall not occupy more than 50% of the width of any street-facing façade of the dwelling units. Front-loading garages shall only be permitted for interior lots and corner lots with more than 50-feet in width. j) Three (3) car wide street loaded garages are not allowed, except in the NE-A and NE-B districts and only on lots a minimum of seventy (70) feet wide and a minimum of one hundred ten (110) feet deep with a minimum 30 feet front setback to the house from the street property line. Additionally, a three car wide street-loaded garage must be set back a minimum of 15-feet from the front façade of the home and must be at least forty five feet from the back of the street property line.
k) Access to alley-loaded garages shall have a maximum 3 to 5-foot driveway length or a 20-foot minimum driveway length (as measured from the rear or side property line (as applicable of a public alley) or a maximum 13 to 15-foot driveway length or a minimum 30-foot driveway length as measured from the centerline of an private alley easement. A five foot landscape planter shall be provided on either side of the alley except at the driveway entrances to each dwelling.
l) For dwellings located on lots less than fifty feet in width and for all multifamily dwellings, duplexes, row homes, townhouses, lane homes and green court homes dwellings, the garage or parking areas (as applicable) for each unit shall be accessed from an alley or driveway behind the dwelling of sufficient width to meet fire code requirements.
m) A minimum clear area of 30 feet wide by 20 feet deep for a three car garage and a minimum clear area of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep for a two car garage will be required. One car detached garage dimensions may vary. The minimum needs to be 20 feet deep by 10 feet wide. The minimum depth for a tandem garage shall be 40 feet. n) Under no circumstances shall a driveway to a street loaded or alley loaded garage or private property cross the path /sidewalk along the north side of the southerly greenway street, except for one driveway in the VC district between Hemingway Drive and the library site and one driveway located on the middle school site. (11) Parking lots, carports or garages, as applicable for multifamily dwellings (including but not limited to courtyard apartments), single-family attached, duplexes and triplexes, green court dwellings, commercial, office, Mixed Use and Flex Use buildings and uses, shall be placed (located) in the rear of the buildings. Where any parking lot abuts a street, a minimum 10-foot wide landscaped area with a 30 inch high decorative wall, hedge, fence, or equivalent feature as approved by the City Planner shall be placed between the parking lot and all abutting public sidewalks to screen views of the parking lots. See Sections 4.3.4 and 4.4.4 of this Specific Plan.

Development
Regulation Use NE-A NE-B NG-A NG-B NG-C VC-A VC-B
(12) Residential, commercial, office, Mixed Use and Flex Use buildings and all other uses in the NG-C and both VC districts shall build to the back of the street sidewalk along seventy five percent (75%) of their street frontage. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the street facades of such buildings may be setback, but only a sufficient distance to accommodate entries, pedestrian oriented outdoor uses and amenities such as patio dining areas, plazas and courtyards, fountains, public area, entry forecourts. Landscaping in maximum 4-foot deep x 1.5 - foot high (or an alternative size as approved by the City Planner) raised planters located behind the required 15-feet wide to 18-feet wide sidewalk is permitted. All entry doors which swing out toward the public sidewalk shall be setback a minimum 4-feet from the back edge of the required sidewalk.
(13) All structures shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the center line of all alleys, except the balcony for a Carriage Apartment may encroach 5-feet into this setback.
(14) Special architectural features such as clock towers, bell towers, cupolas, spires, ornamental portions of parapet walls, or other uninhabitable elements intrinsic to the particular architectural style being used may extend a maximum of 40- feet above the highest habitable floor.
(15) The interior side setback for the garages serving a Row home or Townhouse may be zero feet on one side and 4 feet on the other. The corner side yard setback for the garage must be a minimum of 10-feet. (16) Required parking for all attached and detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, Carriage Apartments, and Courtyard Apartments shall be provided for each unit in an enclosed lockable garage with a roll-up door. The required minimum one car on-site parking for Flex Use, Mixed Use and Multifamily Apartments in both VC districts shall be provided in a lockable garage with a roll-up door, or in carports, provided the parking lot containing the carports is secured with a keypad, card or clicker operated security gate.
(17) Minimum bedroom requirements apply only to multifamily dwelling unit projects with ten or more dwelling units in the NG-A, NG-B, NG-C, VC-A districts. The bedroom per dwelling unit requirement does not apply in the VC-B district. (18) Noise Control.

See the, “Noise Analysis”, by Brown - Buntin Associates, Inc. on file at the City of Salinas Community Development Department.

Page 1 ends

level standards of 60 Ldn or CNEL dBA and 45 dB CNEL, respectfully, for residential land uses.

The City codified this General Plan policy by requiring that the 60 Ldn or CNEL dB exterior noise level be met at the, property line, apparently assuming that the backyard outdoor activity area would share a common property line with the noise source (i.e. an arterial street).

The General Plan promotes the elimination of the use of sound walls and encourages the use of alternative noise mitigation measures such as berms, increased setbacks and other methods where feasible to promote more aesthetically attractive streetscapes and reduce the negative visual and access impacts of sound walls.

Therefore, the design of the Land Use Plan has shielded many of the rear yard outdoor activity areas behind the dwelling units and oriented the front of dwelling units onto frontage streets and parkways, which lie between the home and the arterial street noise source. The acoustic engineer Brown – Buntin Associates, Inc. provided the following minimum distances from the center of the street right-of-way of each of the arterial streets surrounding the Central Area to a point where the 60 CNEL dB sound level would prevail if no intervening dwelling unit or sound wall is provided. All noise attenuation mitigation (including any those specified in this section) must be in accordance the mitigations and requirements provided Central Area Specific Plan EIR and MMRP.

Location of Street
Center Line of
Street to 60
dB Level
Half Street
Right-of-Way
Distance from the
Center Line to the
Right- of-Way 60
dB Level Without
Intervening
Sound Wall or
Dwelling Unit
Mitigation Required
Between Right-ofWay and Backyard
or as Required by
the CASP EIR
Natividad Rd - E. Boronda to southerly
greenway street
286’ 73’ 213’ 8-foot high sound
wall or an
intervening home
with a 20-foot front
yard setback facing
onto a 50 to 54-foot
wide frontage road
parkway and
sidewalk adjacent to
Natividad Road
Natividad Rd - southerly greenway to
northerly greenway streets
248’ 73’ 175’
Natividad Rd. northerly
greenway street to Russell Rd
217’ 73’ 144’
Russell Rd - Natividad Rd. to Independence
Blvd.
63’ 73’ 5’ None Required
Russell Rd - Independence Blvd. to
Hemingway Dr.
63’ 59’ 4’ None required
Russell Rd - Hemingway Dr. to Old Stage
Rd.
63’ 59’ 4’ None required
Old Stage Rd - Russell Rd. to Constitution
Blvd. (Note 1)
134’ 155’ 0’’ None Required
Constitution Blvd - Old Stage Rd. to
northerly greenway street
49’ 63’ 0’’ None Required
Constitution Blvd - northerly greenway
street to southerly greenway street
68’ 63’ 5’ None Required
Constitution Blvd - southerly greenway
street to E. Boronda Road
94’ 63’ 31’ Open Space both
sides None required
E. Boronda Rd – Constitution to
Hemingway
316’ 83’ 233’ 8-foot high sound
wall or an
intervening home
with a 20-front
setback facing onto
a 50 to 54-foot wide
frontage road
parkway and
sidewalk adjacent to
Boronda Road
E. Boronda Rd - Hemingway to
Independence
345’ 83’ 262’
E. Boronda Rd – Independence to
Natividad
373’ 83’ 290’
Note: The half street section is measured from center line of Old Stage Rd. to the south side of the PG&E tower line easement, plus the 50 to 54-foot wide frontage road.

Note: Even with a sound wall or intervening home, triple pane windows and mechanical ventilation or air conditioning must be provided for all residences placed within the above, “Distance from Centerline to 60 dB Level” - The interior noise level must not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. All sound attenuation must comply with the CASP EIR and MMRP. (19) In the two VC districts, an upper story arcade, balcony, bay window, eave, awning or similar architectural features may project up to 11-feet over the 15-foot wide public sidewalk and up to 14 feet over an 18 foot wide sidewalk, provided a minimum ten-foot wide clear walkway is maintained between the building and any column or post supporting the overhang and provided a ten-foot clear height is maintained or as provided in the CASP EIR. (20) See Section 4.7(g) and Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-50.040: Building Projections into Yards for other allowable encroachments.
(21) A Master Sign Program shall be required for all signage located in multifamily residential, Mixed Use, Flex Use, and non-residential developments in the Specific Plan and for any Subdivision entry signs. Timing of submittal shall be in accordance with Salinas Zoning Code Article V, Division 3: Signs. (22) The Lot Size and Lot Area Per Unit shall be subject to the approval of the City Planner at the time of the Tentative or Vesting Subdivision Map creating the applicable lots. All lots shall meet the minimum and maximum density requirements of the Specific Plan described in Sectiond 3.7 through 3.11. (23) To determine the allowable units per net acre on each block in each Zoning District refer to Sections 3.7 through 3.11 and Appendix G of this Specific Plan.
(24) Structures within the VC districts shall not intercept a 45 inclined plan inward starting from a height of twenty feet (20) above the existing grade at a non VC district rear or side property line.

Table 6-4 Student Generation Rates

DWELLING UNIT TYPE EDUCATION LEVEL GENERATION FACTORS

ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (AUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.67550.4180
Middle N/A
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD

GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VCAB)
Elementary 0.73980.2857
Middle N/A
High N/A

SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (SRUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.3148
Middle 0.1955
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VCA-B)
Elementary 0.5715
Middle 0.1892
High N/A

SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (SUHSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.1350.114
High 0.2080.137

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VCA-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.0090.028
High 0.0410.011
SOURCES: SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2018SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION REPORTSCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 2020; SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, MARCH 6, 2018. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, JULY 202, 20182020.

NOTES: AUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS; SRUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS; SUHSD ONLY CONTAINS MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS.

Appendix K street section revisions

City of Salinas
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT * 65 W. Alisal Street * Salinas, California 93901 * (831) 758-7206 * Fax (831) 758-7215
DATE: September 8, 2017
TO: State Clearinghouse FROM: Jill Miller, Senior Planner State Responsible Agencies City of Salinas
State Trustee Agencies Community Development Department Other Public Agencies 65 West Alisal Street (Second Floor) Interested Organizations Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: (831) 758‐7206
Fax: (831) 775‐4258
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation –Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) EIR

EIR CONSULTANT
Steve McMurtry, Principal Planner
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Phone: (916) 580-9818
An Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project and is attached to this Notice of Preparation (NOP).

The Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, contains a description of the proposed project, a map showing its location, and discussion of its probable environmental effects. Notably, the proposed project is one of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, making the project subject to the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21092.4. That statute provides that, for any such project, “the lead agency shall consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies that have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could be affected by the project. Consultation shall be conducted in the same manner as for responsible agencies pursuant to [CEQA], and shall be for the purpose of the lead agency obtaining information concerning the project’s effect onmajorlocal arterials, public transit,freeways, highways, overpasses, on‐ramps, off‐ramps, and rail transit service within the jurisdiction of a transportation planning agency or a public agency that is consulted by the lead agency.” As used in section 21092.4, the term “As used in this section, ‘transportation facilities’ includes major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site and freeways, highways, overpasses, on‐ramps, offramps, and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site.”
The Initial Study lists those issues that will require detailed analysis and technical studies that will need to be evaluated and/or prepared as part of the EIR. The EIR will consider potential environmental effects of the proposed project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effect, and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary to make a determination on the level of significance.

Those environmental issues that have been determined to be less than significant will have a discussion that is limited to a brief explanation of why those effects are not considered potentially significant. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15128.) In addition, the EIR may also consider those environmental issues, which are raised by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and members of the public or related agencies during the NOP process.

Exhibit C
We need to know the views of your agency or organization as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities or of interest to your organization in connection with the proposed project. Specifically, we are requesting the following:

1. If you are a public agency, state whether your agency will be a responsible or trustee agency for the proposed project and list the permits or approvals from your agency that will be required for the project and its future actions;

2. Identify significant environmental effects and mitigation measures that you believe need to be explored in the EIR with supporting discussion of why you believe these effects may be significant;

3. Describe special studies and other information that you believe are necessary for the City of Salinas to analyze the significant environmental effects, alternatives, and mitigation measures you have identified;

4. For public agencies that provide infrastructure and public services, identify any facilities that must be provided (both on‐ and off‐site) to provide services to the proposed project;

5. Indicate whether a member(s) from your agency would like to attend a scoping workshop/meeting for public agencies to discuss the scope and content of the EIR’s environmental information;

6. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the contact person from your agency or organization that we can contact regarding your comments.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent to and received by the City of Salinas by the following deadlines:
 For responsible agencies, transportation planning agencies, and public agencies that have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could be affected by the project, not later than 30 days after you receive this notice.
 For all other agencies and organizations, not later than 30 days following the publication of this Notice of Preparation. The 30‐day review period ends on October 9, 2017.

If we do not receive a response from your agency or organization, we will presume that your agency or organization has no response to make.

Because the project is one of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, the City of Salinas as lead agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15082, subd. (c)(1).) A public scoping meeting will be held during the public review period as follows:

1. September 27, 2017 at 2‐4pm in the City of Salinas Rotunda (located at 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901).

Please send your response to Jill Miller – Senior Planner at the City of Salinas, 65 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93901. If you have any questions, please contact Jill Miller – Senior Planner at (831) 758‐ 7206 or via email at [email protected]. The Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study are available for review at the City of Salinas Community Development Department located at 65 W. Alisal Street; at three Salinas libraries including the Steinbeck Library located at 350 Lincoln Avenue, the El Gabilan Library located at 1400 N. Main Street, and the Cesar Chavez Library located at 615 Williams Road; and on-line on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/community-development/documents-publicreview.

Exhibit D Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
https://salinascamy.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jonathanm_ci_salinas_ca_us/EX57ii1VTNtLgZKPm3dY6s8Bp VmLbZaULqy4EXAr_ADLLg?e=RKS7Bc
Exhibit E Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices https://salinascamy.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jonathanm_ci_salinas_ca_us/EcRwka2zdWxLow3QxA3gxZw BR2rvT4Vdoe-df3NaCtgGrA?e=7SlJjt
Exhibit F

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
OCTOBER 16, 2020
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street (Second Floor)
Salinas, CA 93901
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m Exhibit G

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
OCTOBER 16, 2020
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street (Second Floor)
Salinas, CA 93901
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TOC-1 Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.1 CEQA Requirements for a Final EIR ..................................................................... 1.0-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process........................................................................... 1.0-2

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR............................................................................... 1.0-3

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses........................................................................... 2.0-1

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 List of Commentors ............................................................................................ 2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses.................................................................................. 2.0-2

3.0 Errata .......................................................................................................................... 3.0-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................... 3.0-1

4.0 Final MMRP .................................................................................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................... 4.0-1

5.0 Report Preparers............................................................................................................. 5.0-1 Table Page Number
Table 2.0-1: List of Commentors ........................................................................................... 2.0-1 Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring Program......................................................................... 4.0-2

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 1.0-1

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Central Area Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that an FEIR consist of the following:
• The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the draft; • Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into this Final EIR.

An EIR must disclose a proposed project’s expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize significant environmental impacts of proposed development, and creates an obligation for such agencies to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

PURPOSE AND USE
The City of Salinas has determined that a program-level EIR was required for the proposed Central Area Specific Plan (herein the Specific Plan) Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR focuses on the environmental effects related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, greenhouse gases, climate change and energy, hazards and hazardous material, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend potentially feasible methods to eliminate or reduce potential significant adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding or lessening significant adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance such significant adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute the FEIR, which will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan associated with the proposed project. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the proposed project are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on September 8, 2017 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on September 27, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., at the City of Salinas Rotunda (located at 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901) in Salinas to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR (seven comment letters were received).

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on June 26, 2020, thereby soliciting comments from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.

The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2017091022) and the County Clerk, and was published in a regional newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from June 26, 2020 through August 11, 2020. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, descriptions of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growthinducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies environmental subject areas for which the City determined that there would be no impacts or less than significant impacts, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOA and Draft EIR were considered in preparing the analysis in the FEIR.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The City of Salinas received ten (13) comment letters during the Draft EIR public review period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Errata. This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The City Council of Salinas will review and consider the Draft EIR together with the Final EIR. In order to take actions based upon the Final EIR (such as approving the proposed project or an alternative), the City Council must first “certify” the document under State CEQA Guidelines section 15090.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 1.0-3 Certification consists of three separate findings to the effect that “(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis.” In addressing the first of these three issues, the City Council may find that the Final EIR complies with CEQA if the Council finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete." The rule of adequacy generally holds that a Final EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

Upon review and consideration of the certified Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project, for which this FEIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring Program, as described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the proposed project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

It is found in Chapter 4 of this document.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which identifiesthe content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 (this chapter) briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead agency (the City), summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commentors, copies of written comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to significant environmental issues raised in those written comments.

CHAPTER 3.0 - ERRATA
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR, as well as minor staff edits. The revisions to the Draft EIR do not change the intent or content of the analysis or mitigation.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility, timing, and verification of monitoring.

CHAPTER 5.0 - REPORT PREPARERS
Chapter 5.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Salinas received thirteen (13) comment letters on the Draft EIR during the EIR 45-day public review period. Acting as lead agency, the City of Salinas has prepared responses to the Draft EIR comments. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTORS
Table 2-1 liststhe comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the City of Salinas. The assigned comment letter number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTORS

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR

SIGNATORY

AFFILIATION

DATE OF
LETTER
A Heather Adamson Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) 07/08/2020 B Monique Wilber California Department of Conservation 07/29/2020 C Debra L. Hale Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) 8/11/2020 D Fred Watson California State University Monterey Bay 8/10/2020 E Michael D. DeLapa LandWatch 8/10/2020
F Julie A. Vance California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) 8/11/2020 G Kate Roberts Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) 8/11/2020 H Chris Bjornstad California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 8/11/2020 I Devon B. Lincoln Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Alisal Union School District 8/11/2020
J Devon B. Lincoln Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Salinas Union School District 8/11/2020
K Devon B. Lincoln Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Santa Rita Union School District 8/11/2020
L Hanna Muegge Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) 8/11/2020 M Kate McKenna Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCo) 8/11/2020

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the Draft EIR that raise significant environmental issues. Section 15008(b) provides that “[t]he written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency‘s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” Section 15204 adds that “[w]hen responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-3 environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” In addressing how commenters on draft EIRs should focus their comments, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commentors provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that commentors provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5), an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR is an Errata that identifies all revisions to the Draft EIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

Errata
Where changes to the Draft EIR text result from the response to comments, those changes are included in the response and identified with revision marks (underline for new text, strike out for deleted text).

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan A-1
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-5 Response to Letter A: Heather Adamson, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
Response A-1: This comment identifies a transcription error in Chapter 5.0 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. Based on this comment, we have updated page 5.0-20 of the Draft EIR as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have an equal impact with respect to Air Quality Impact 3.1-1, which is identified as “the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.” This is because the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), in consultation with the City of Salinas, included the North of Boronda FGA (inclusive of the Central Area Specific Plan) within the AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast. The AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast feeds into the Monterey Bay Air Resources Board’s (MBARD)AMBAG’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) as well as the future version of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Since the Plan Area under this alternative would be developed with the same components as described in the Project Description, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed project.

No further response is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan B-1
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-7 B-1
(continued)
B-2
B-3
B-4

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan B-4 (continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-9 Response to Letter B: Monique Wilber, California Department of Conservation
Response B-1: This comment is an introduction to the comment letter, which includes a summary of the project description. No response to this comment is required.

Response B-2: The commentor states:
“The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and significant impact to California’s agricultural land resources. Under CEQA, a lead agency should not approve a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would lessen the significant effects of the project. All mitigation measures that are potentially feasible should be included in the project’s environmental review. A measure brought to the attention of the lead agency should not be left out unless it is infeasible based on its elements.

This comment is noted. It should be noted that the Draft EIR relies on analysis previously provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002).

The analysis of the project’s potential to convert agricultural land was addressed on page 1.0-17 of the Draft EIR.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that General Plan buildout would result in the conversion of 3,525 acres designated for agriculture to urban uses. The Final Environmental Impact Report also indicates that General Plan buildout would result in agricultural activity in proximity to residential and other urban uses, which may result in conflicts between the uses. It is noted that agricultural activity can cause nuisances related to air quality and noise that may disturb surrounding development. Urban activities may also negatively affect nearby agricultural uses, as increased vandalism often occurs and the introduction of domestic animals may disturb certain agricultural activities.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AG1 through AG4, the impacts on potential compatibility issues would be reduced to a less than significant level; however, while the impacts on agricultural conversion would be reduced to the extent feasible, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain related to the loss of important farmland. Mitigation AG5 specifically addressed Agricultural Land Conservation Easement Program, which states that the City will work with the County of Monterey and other local jurisdictions to create and implement an agricultural land conservation easement program, including such measures as securing the dedication of easements or by paying a mitigation fee that could be used to purchase easements through a mitigation bank. Additionally, in 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19422, approving the Agricultural Land Preservation Program. The resolution adopted a $750.00 per acre mitigation fee for agricultural lands currently designated by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping Program as “Prime” or “of Statewide Importance”.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The City of Salinas certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002), adopted a statement of overriding considerations relative to this significant and unavoidable impact, and approved the Salinas General Plan.

Subsequently, the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that agricultural impacts associated with the FGAs, which includes the Specific Plan, would not be different from those discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002).

Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes all development under the proposed project, would be required to comply with the above‐referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). Therefore, this topic does not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR. In compliance with CEQA, no new mitigation measures relating to this issue are required. No further response is warranted.

Response B-3: The commentor states:
“As the courts have shown, agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size can mitigate project impacts in accordance with CEQA Guideline § 15370.

The Department highlights agricultural conservation easements because of their acceptance and use by lead agencies as an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA. Agricultural conservation easements are an available mitigation tool and should always be considered; however, any other feasible mitigation measures should also be considered.

A source that has proven helpful for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance.”
The comment makes the statement that “[a]s the courts have shown, agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size can mitigate project impacts in accordance with CEQA Guideline § 15370.” (Footnote omitted.) In support of this statement, the letter cites Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 230, 238.

However, in contrast to the above-cited court case, a more recent court case, King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 875-876, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District, held that conservation easements that simply protect existing farmland are not effective CEQA mitigation insofar as they cannot not reduce the loss of agricultural land to a less than significant level. At most, any mitigation is “partial.” (Id. at p. 873.) The court stated that “an agricultural conservation easement merely prevents the future conversion of the agricultural land subject to the easement. Because the easement does not offset the loss of agricultural land (in whole or in part), the easement does not reduce a project’s impact on agricultural land.” (Id. at p. 875.) On COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-11 the other hand, a measure requiring the restoration of agricultural land devoted to oil and gas uses was an effective CEQA mitigation measure, as such approach compensated for lost agricultural land. (Id. at pp. 876.) A fee-based system for buying credits might be effective mitigation if it involves restoration rather than just pure preservation. (Id. at pp. 877-878.).

Moreover, as provided in Response B-2, this topic does not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR. In compliance with CEQA, no new mitigation measures relating to this issue are required. No further response is warranted.

Response B-4: The commentor provides a list of agricultural-related issuesrecommended for further discussion, prior to approval of the proposed project. However, as described above under Response B-2, environmental issues relating to the conversion of agricultural land were previously addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002), pursuant to the tiering requirements of CEQA. There are no new impacts or mitigation measures associated with the proposed project relating to this topic to be considered. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, no additional discussion of these issues in the Draft EIR is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-13 C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter C: Debra L. Hale, Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Response C-1: This comment serves an introduction to the comment letter. No further response is required.

Response C-2: The commentor states:
“TAMC predicts that the trip distribution analysis underestimates the percentage of trips going to the Monterey Peninsula through State Route 68 and State Route 183 and requests justification for the proposed distribution along those key regional routes.” The project’s trip distribution pattern was developed based on information (specifically, a “select zone” analysis) from the City of Salinas’ travel demand model. The City’s travel demand model is a subarea model of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s (AMBAG) regional travel demand model. As such, it includes all roadways of regional significance within the County, with additional land use and roadway network granularity added within the City of Salinas. State Routes 68 and 183 are included within the models and traffic is assigned to both facilities within the project’s trip distribution pattern and subsequent analyses. As noted by the comment, the model predicts that fairly low levels of project-related peak hour vehicular traffic would travel on these roadways. This result is likely driven by the proximity and size of complementary land-uses being served by the roadways.

Response C-3: The commentor states:
“TAMC predicts that the total applied reductions to the trip generation model are optimistic, unless all the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the draft Specific Plan are built with this project. TAMC recommends that some of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements, such as sidewalk infrastructure, public benches, bicycle lanes, and bicycle parking be conditioned as mitigations for the development projects in order to ensure they are built and contribute to overall trip reduction. Consideration should also be given to providing new housing tenants transit passes to access Monterey-Salinas Transit’s services.” All of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Specific Plan would be developed by the project. Therefore, it is not applicable to include these project characteristics as mitigation. A large number of recommended conditions of approval relating to transportation have been included in the Section 3.10: Transportation and Circulation section of the Draft EIR. Ultimately, the mitigation proposed by this comment is not needed, since the Draft EIR did not identify any significant LOS impacts. No further response is warranted.

Response C-4: The commentor states:
“TAMC and Caltrans consider payment of the Regional Development Impact Fee as mitigation for a development’s cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network.

Our Agency supports mitigation measure 3.10-6 providing that all new development within COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-15 the specific plan area will be conditioned to pay their fair share of regional fees to address cumulative impacts.”
The commentor states their support for Mitigation Measure 3.10-6 (i.e. Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6) of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Response C-5: The commentor states:
“TAMC supports the intention to slow vehicular movement in the neighborhood areas through principles of complete streets. TAMC’s Complete Streets Guidebook can serve as a resource for implementation of complete streets, available here:
https://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/complete-streets/” This comment is noted. The commentor states their support for the ‘complete streets’ characteristics of the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response C-6: The commentor states:
“To accomplish the Specific Plan’s Circulation Goal #1, the development should place a premium on safe and accessible pedestrian access to the site from intersections and crosswalks, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. The project site should also be designed with sidewalks that connect to external facilities and provide access to transit stops. As per Caltrans standards, bicycle lanes should be constructed to the left of any right-hand turn lanes included in the development or constructed off-site as mitigation. Also, the document should address the need for any new roadways be designed to accommodate bicycles with adequate pavement for bike travel, with specific dimensions clearly identified, particularly along major arterials.”
This comment is noted. The proposed Specific Plan has already been designed to place a premium on safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian access, including with sidewalks that connect to external facilities that also provide access to transit stops. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan has been designed in accordance with Caltrans standards, as applicable. Moreover, the Specific Plan provides specifications for the new roadways that accommodate bicycles. No further response is required.

Response C-7: The commentor states:
“TAMC supports the mitigation measures 3.1-2, 3.1-6 and 3.1-7 intent to incorporate effective methods of cleaner alternative fuels and alternative transportation such as electric vehicle charging infrastructure, secure bicycle parking locations, and park-and-ride lots. The Agency advises the project applicant to consider pursing funding for secure bicycle parking through TAMC’s Bicycle Secure Program, and Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s grant programs to support installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.” This comment is noted. The commentor states their support for Mitigation Measures 3.1-2, 3.1-6, and 3.1-7 of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response C-8: The commentor states:
“TAMC encourages the use of Monterey-Salinas Transit’s Designing for Transit Manual as a resource to support current and potential future transit access to the project site. Monterey Salinas Transit is in the process of updating their 2006 manual; the 2020 draft Designing for Transit manual is available here: https://www.tamcmonterey.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/DesigningForTransit_07-03-20.pdf” This comment is noted. No further response is required.

Response C-9: The comment serves as a concluding statement. No response is required.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-17 D-1
D-2

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter D: Fred Watson, California State University Monterey Bay
Response D-1: The commentor states:
“In Figure 1-6, the "Pedestrian Paths" should also be bike paths - just like the ones that already exist primarily along Gabilan & Natividad Creeks.” This comment is directed at a figure developed as part of the Specific Plan. It is noted that the Specific Plan allows for most pedestrian paths to be utilized for bicycle travel, which is consistent with existing paths in the City. This comment does not warrant any edits to the EIR; however, this comment is being provided to the Specific Plan team to consider. No further response is required.

Response D-2: The commentor states:
“The bike/ped circulation system should include a connection between the Gabilan Creek drainage and the Natividad Creek drainage that is buffered by a greenway (i.e. an open space corridor) and not directly adjacent to roads. I'm a runner who lives in Marina but runs in Salinas from time to time. I think my experience with City trails is representative of many folks using the existing bike/ped paths in the City. Currently in the City, I can run a loop, say, from Natividad Creek Park down toward Carr Lake, across past the Vietnam Memorial to the Constitution Sports Complex, up Gabilan Creek, and across through streets back to Natividad Creek Park. The whole loop is buffered by open space EXCEPT THE CONNECTION FROM GABILAN CREEK TO NATIVIDAD CREEK (roughly along Nuntucket Blvd). When properly managed, open space corridors beside trails promote a safe and peaceful experience for people of all ages. An open-space / greenway connection between the two creek systems would be a wonderful asset to the community because of the trail LOOPS it would facilitate.

At present, almost all Salinas trails run along watercourses, which is an obvious and beneficial design choice available to planners. Making the loop connections BETWEEN creek systems requires a little more initiative, but will be worth it because of the many benefits loops create with respect to frequency of use and minimization of public safety problems trail dead-ends.”
This comment is directed as the Specific Plan, and does not warrant any edits or response regarding the EIR. This comment is being provided to the Specific Plan team to consider and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of this Final EIR. No further response is required.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-19 E-1

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan E-2
E-3
E-4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-21 E-4
(continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan E-4
(continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-23 E-4
(continued)
E-5
E-6

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan E-6
(continued)
E-7
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-25 E-8
E-7
(continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan E-8
(continued)
E-9
E-10
(Continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-27 E-10
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan E-10 (Continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-29 E-11

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter E: Michael D. DeLapa, Landwatch
Response E-1: The commentor provides an introduction to the comment letter and provides a summary of the project characteristics. This comment is noted and no further response is required.

Response E-2: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR fails to evaluate the effect of the Central Area Specific Plan on loss of agricultural land, treating it as a topic that does not warrant further discussion because it was addressed in the General Plan EIR. (DEIR p. 1.0-17.) The DEIR's brief reference to agricultural land loss states that the General Plan EIR adequately addressed the loss of agricultural land and found the impact to be significant and unavoidable. Even if that were the case, CEQA requires that the City adopt feasible mitigation or an alternative that would lessen the impact as long as it remains significant and unavoidable. Here, the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would lessen the loss of agricultural land. The EIR should be revised to disclose this fact.

Furthermore, the comparison of alternatives in Tables ES-1 and 5.0-8 should be revised to disclose that the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have lesser impacts on agricultural land loss than the proposed project. The public and decision makers cannot evaluate alternatives adequately without this disclosure.” With regard to the topic of conversion of agricultural land, as stated in this comment, the Draft EIR relies on analysis previously provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002), as provided on page 1.0-17 of the Draft EIR. This approach to analyzing the loss of agricultural land is consistent with CEQA. Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes all development under the proposed project, would be required to comply with all existing regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant adverse impacts associated with agricultural conversion beyond those addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). Therefore, this topic does not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR.

The commentor also states that CEQA requires that the City adopt feasible mitigation or an alternative that would lessen the impact as long as it remains significant and unavoidable. However, at the time the Draft EIR was released, and until the City Council takes final action, the Reduced Land Area Alternative is only “potentially feasible”. The reasoning for this determination is provided below.

At the Draft EIR stage of the CEQA process, a lead agency’s staff and consultants need only determine whether the alternatives included in that document are “potentially feasible,” while the lead agency’s decision-making body will ultimately decide whether the alternatives are “actually feasible.” (See, e.g., California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 999-1001 (CNPS); San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 18 (San Diego); and Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489.) Here, the City Council has the authority to adopt an alternative as being feasible or to reject an COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-31 alternative for being infeasible, including for policy reasons and the failure to obtain project objectives. (See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [“‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”]; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001[same]; and San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17 [same]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 296 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; and In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) [“feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].) Thus, while each of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR should be considered potentially feasible, only the City Council can determine whether any of them is actually feasible. This determination will be revealed in the City Council’s CEQA Findings at the time of action on the proposed project. It is also noted that the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative was not identified as the environmentally superior alternative, and it did not meet all of the project objectives.

Response E-3: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR finds the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the latest air quality plan (DEIR p. 3.1-27) This conclusion is based on the finding that the City of Salinas has worked closely with AMBAG to ensure that City population estimates are included within AMBAG’s 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, which will feed into the next AQMP. The latest AQMP is for 2014-2015 and includes the 2014 AMBAG population forecasts, not the 2018 forecasts. The project is inconsistent with the adopted AQMP.

Further, the DEIR finds operation of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality (p. 3.1-30). This finding is contrary to the DEIR finding that the project would not conflict with the latest air quality plan.” The commentor identifies that the latest AQMP is for 2014-2015, which does not include the 2018 forecasts. Therefore, the commentor states that the project is inconsistent with the adopted AQMP.

Separately, the commentor states that the significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality (i.e. criteria pollutant impacts associated with project operation) is contrary to the “less than significant” impact identified in Impact 3.1-1 (i.e. regarding whether the project would conflict with the latest air quality plan).

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan This comment is noted. However, the AMBAG Board of Directors used the same “Regional Growth Forecast Methodology” in 2018 as in 2014, with minor updates. 1 Moreover, the Salinas Central Area
Specific Plan (the proposed project), as part of the City’s North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA), has been in development for over twenty years. In 2014, AMBAG anticipated development of the North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA), which includes the project, within the 2014 version of the Regional Growth Forecast.

The commentor is incorrect in assuming that, to find an impact to be less than significant under Impact 3.1-1 (whether the project has the potential to conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan), the existing air quality plan must have utilized the 2018 version of the Regional Growth Forecast. Regardless, for the sake of clarity, some minor errata changes have been made to page 3.1-27 of the Draft EIR, as described below.

It should also be noted that it is permissible to find a less than significant impact for Impact 3.1-1 (i.e. conflict with the applicable air quality plan) while finding a significant and unavoidable impact for Impact 3.1-2 (i.e. the project operation has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants). This is because the two sets of impact analyses apply different thresholds. Specifically, Impact 3.1-1 relies on the project’s consistency with the applicable AQMP, which the project is consistent with, while Impact 3.1-2 relies on the project’s consistency with the Air District’s operational criteria pollutant thresholds, for which the project does not meet. There is no inconsistency between these two separate conclusions. That is, the project can be both consistent with the applicable AQMP, while also exceeding the operational criteria pollutant thresholds as established by the Air District.

Nevertheless, based on this comment, we have updated page 3.1-27 as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

Page 3 ends

The City of Salinas has worked closely with AMBAG to ensure that City population estimates are included within AMBAG’s 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, which will feed into the next AQMP. The population estimates for the Central Area Specific Plan are included in these growth forecasts.

Additionally, as the proposed project has been planned for over twenty years, the project has been incorporated into earlier versions of the Regional Growth Forecast, including AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast, which feeds into the current AQMP (i.e. MBARD’s 2012 – 2015 AQMP). As such, the City has met the action recommended by MBARD in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (MBARD, 2008a) to ensure consistency with the applicable air quality plan (i.e. "Ensure that the jurisdiction's population forecasts are updated in the next AQMP by working with AMBAG or the appropriate local agency.”).
1 According to Appendix A, while the methodology of the 2018 Regional Growth Forecast remained the same in 2014, the model was updated in 2018 to reflect current data, a revised base year of 2015, and a new horizon year of 2040. For further detail, see https://ambag.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/08-AMBAG_MTPSCS_AppendixA_PDFA.pdf COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-33 No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response E-4: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR finds cumulative impacts on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions to be significant and unavoidable. The operational emissions would be a long-term release totaling approximately 45,347 MT CO2e without mitigation and 40,134 MT CO2e with mitigation (DEIR p. 4.0-11).

Although the DEIR states that “the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible,” the DEIR fails to consider, evaluate, and propose those mitigation measures.

Instead it relies on Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, calling for the applicant to prepare a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan at some point in the future, “pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b).” (DEIR p. 3.4-40). This deferred mitigation does not comply with CEQA for several reasons.

First, an agency may not defer formulation of mitigation unless it provides a sufficient reason. The DEIR provides no reason for deferral of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

Second, the DEIR does not simply require the future formulation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, but also purports to rely on this future plan in its determination of the significance of the Specific Plan’s impacts. For example, the DEIR finds that the Specific Plan would not conflict with plans for reducing GHG emissions because of Mitigation Measure

3.4-1:

The Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, as described above.

With implementation of the mitigation measures provided within Section 3.1: Air Quality and with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, there would be a less than significant impact (DEIR p. 3.4-46).

But CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b) only permits an agency to rely on “Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” when analyzing the significance of impacts “if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances.” Furthermore, the “specified circumstances” include the requirementsthat the Plan “specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level” and that the Plan has been “adopted in a public process following environmental review.” Here, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans have not yet been adopted, and there is no specification of the measures that demonstrably achieve the specified emissions level. To the contrary, Mitigation Measure

3.4-1 merely mandates that the applicant prepare the plan, not that the future projects actually meet the specified emissions levels. The DEIR allows the future projects simply to claim that the emissions reductions are not feasible:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan If sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the project applicant shall include evidence in the GGRP to this effect (FRIR p. 3.4-41).

And the DEIR later admits that projects may not attain the required reductions:

On a project-by-project case, the City of Salinas evaluates a project and the potential to impose project-specific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis.

However, because it is possible that individual projects within the Specific Plan Area may not achieve GHG reductions needed for their individual impacts to be less than significant, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and significant and unavoidable impact to GHGs (DEIR p. 4.0-11).

In sum, the DEIR improperly relies on deferred Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and reaches contradictory conclusions as to the efficacy of these unspecified plans.

The fundamental problem is that the DEIR simply fails to acknowledge that the City has authority to impose specific mitigation measures that would reduce GHG Emissions from the Specific plan. The DEIR claims that “the City does not have the jurisdiction to create farreaching (i.e. statewide) measures to reduce GHG emissions.” (DEIR p. 4.0-11.) While the City may not impose statewide measures, it does have both the authority and the responsibility to condition the Specific Plan on specific local measures, such as the mitigation measures that would be required if SB 743 were addressed in the Transportation analysis. Even if SB 743 compliance is not mandated for this EIR, the DEIR does have to assess and propose mitigation for GHG impacts, which is the primary goal of the VMT analysis in SB 743.

The DEIR should be revised and recirculated to include a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan applicable to all future projects in the Specific Plan area that actually complies with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b). In addition, the DEIR must actually specify and propose adequate mitigation measures to ensure that GHG impacts are less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., measures that would ensure meeting the performance specification) or, if that is not possible, then the DEIR must specify and propose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. For example, the EIR should propose [list of suggested mitigation measures].”
“The DEIR should assess GHG emissions with and without this mitigation, as CEQA requires.

The CAPCOA publication and the literature that it references provides guidance for quantifying these reductions.”
The commentor describes several issues and recommendations for the DEIR impacts associated with climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. Firstly, the commentor takes issue with Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, which calls for the applicant to prepare a future Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, which the commentor considers as deferred mitigation. The commentor states that such “deferred mitigation” does not comply with CEQA for several reasons.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-35 However, the City does not concur with the commentor’s assessment that the mitigation measure represents “deferred mitigation”. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 does include enforceable performance standards (“per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050”) that applicants must attempt to achieve if feasible in preparing individual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. These standards will kick in at the time applicants seek approvals of tentative subdivision maps, conditional use permits, or site plan review, which will be subject to review by the Planning Commission (and possibly the City Council), with opportunities for public input on the adequacy of the required Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans.

Moreover, as clarified below, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 need not, as the commentor contends, itself have to comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5, subdivision (b), as that section sets forth an optional procedure of which agencies may avail themselves. Rather, the applicant and City will retain the option to prepare Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans pursuant to that CEQA Guidelines provision.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 does need to comply, however, with general CEQA principles governing mitigation measures, which it does. Nevertheless, it is true that there exists the possibility that it might not be feasible to achieve this level of reduction if on-site GHG measures are prohibitively expensive or if sufficient numbers of greenhouse gas offsets are not available (as offsets will be needed to address vehicular emission that cannot otherwise be mitigated).

In saying that the City can simply mandate that the performance standards shall be met, the commentor assumes that all necessary mitigation options will be feasible and available. This may or may not turn out to be true. Most importantly, as long as the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project area will burn fossil fuels and generate GHGs, there will be limits on GHG reductions available solely due to on-site mitigation strategies. This means that carbon offsets will generally be necessary to achieve the identified performance standards. In light of recent case law, however, sufficient carbon offsets may not be available. The only offsets deemed to meet CEQA mitigation standards must be so stringent that sophisticated observers wonder whether the market for them will exceed the demand. These high standards for carbon offsets are dictated by Golden Door Properties, LLC, v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 506-526. In that case, the Court announced that viable CEQA carbon offsets must be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such carbon offsets must also be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth Section 95972, subdivision (a) of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and must not include emissions reductions occurring outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a lead agency, or an air pollution control district or air quality management district. Such credits may be purchased only through one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the CAPCOA GHG Rx and any program adopted an air pollution control district or air quality management district. Given these very stringent standards, it is impossible at present for the City to know with certainty that sufficient carbon offsets will be available for the Central Area Specific Plan when needed. This is one reason

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan why the City is treating the impact as significant and unavoidable and why the City Council will have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to be able to approve the project.

Another reason why is that the City is treating Impact 3.4-1 as significant and unavoidable is that the City is concerned that some potentially available on-site measures may be so prohibitively expensive that they could either would substantially increase the cost of proposed housing (contrary to State stator policy [see, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)] or, worse, render a proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601.

Notably, with Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the City has preserved the option of future approvals under the Specific Plan by relying on a City “qualified” GHG reduction plan in place at the time, provided that such a GHG reduction plan reflects the most recent legislatively-adopted GHG reduction targets (e.g., the 2030 target set by SB 32), includes an inventory of projected GHG emissions from development within the Plan Area, and includes GHG reduction measures applicable to development within the Plan Area whose implementation is required as a condition of approval of such future project approvals.

Moreover, it is not practical, in 2020, to address which specific optional strategies for meeting this performance standards will be the most viable or feasible over the coming decades. Buildout o the Specific Plan will take a long time (anticipated at 20 years or more), existing technologies will evolve, and new ones will be invented. Therefore, the future costs of various options, including carbon offsets, cannot be predicted with any certainty. For this reason, the City is not requiring a single Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) for the entire Specific Plan, but rather is requiring individual GGRPs for each tentative map or use permit as individual projects within the Specific Plan come forward. Some maps will be pursued not long after Specific Plan approval, while others will not be proposed for more than a decade after Specific Plan approval. The world and technological options will change over such a substantial timeframe. Relatedly, the commenter implies that cost is not a legitimate factor to consider, but high costs will drive up the cost of housing and will have to be borne by future homeowners. Notably, the Legislature has recently found and declared that the State is suffering from a housing crisis. (See Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-6 – 3.8-7.) The commentor then goes on to describe that the Draft EIR does not simply require the future formulation of the GGRP, but also purports to rely on this future plan in its determination of significance of the project’s impacts. Specifically, the commentor is concerned with the ‘less than significant with mitigation’ determination under Impact 3.4-2 (potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases). The commentor states that Impact 3.4-2, which relies on Mitigation Measure

3.4-2, should appropriately have a ‘significant and unavoidable’ significance determination, based on the inability to rely on the GGRP provided in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 to reduce project greenhouse gas emissions to below the stated performance threshold.

However, the commentor is confused in saying that, to find an impact to be less than significant under this category (potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases), the City must have in place its own COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-37 plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases (e.g., a climate action plan) adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5, subdivision (b). Rather, the City’s analysis of this impact was legitimate in asking whether the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with (1) the current version of the CARB 2017 statewide Scoping Plan, (2) Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-03-05, and (3) 2008 Monterey Bay Regional Energy Plan. In other words, the area of inquiry here is not as narrow as the commentor believes. Moreover, although compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 does not guarantee that each discrete project within the Specific Plan would achieve the enforceable performance standards (“per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and

0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050”), this does not mean that Specific Plan as a whole would be inconsistent with the Scoping Plan, Executive Scoping Plan, Executive Orders B-30- 15 and S-03-05, and the 2008 Monterey Bay Regional Energy Plan.

The commentor further states that the fundamental issue with the Draft EIR is that it does not acknowledge that the City has the authority to impose specific mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions from the Specific Plan. The commentor identifies that, while the City may not impose statewide measures, it does have both the authority and responsibility to condition the Specific Plan on specific local measures. The commentor concludes by stating the Draft EIR should be amended to include additional mitigation measures to ensure that greenhouse gas impacts are less than cumulatively considerable (i.e. measures that would ensure meeting the performance specification), or, if that is not possible, then the Draft EIR must specify and proposed all feasible mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The commentor then provides a list of potential greenhouse-gas related mitigation measures.

With respect to the list of GHG reduction measures that the commentor provides, the City concurs that they should be among the options available to try to achieve the above-referenced performance standards. That is why CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures is already referenced within Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 as a primary source for GHG reduction measures that can be considered for the individual project GGRPs, along with applicable measures from MBARD and other nearby air districts. A subset of the available CAPCOA measures are referenced by the commentor in their comment. The City concurs that these, as well as other measures, are among the options available to applicants to try to achieve the above-referenced performance standards.

Therefore, based on this comment, we have updated Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 to provide further for clarity and robustness. The measure has also been refined to clarify the opportunities for public input on individual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The City has therefore updated pages 3.4-40 and 3.4-41, as well as pages ES-31 and ES-32 of the Draft EIR as follows, which is also noted in Section

3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

Pages 3.4-40 and 3.4-41:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan aimed at achieving specific performance standards. The GGRP may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and shall include the following:
1) The GGRP shall achieve, if feasible, a per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050.
2) Calculation of GHG emissions projection using an acceptable modeling tool such as the most recent version of CalEEMod.

GHG reduction measures may include building and site energy reduction measures, measures to reduce project-generated vehicle miles traveled, or other measures. Off-site measures such as participation in a community-wide GHG reduction program(s), if any are adopted, or payment of GHG reduction fees (carbon offsets) into a qualified existing program, may be considered after all feasible on-site reduction measures are considered. Any carbon offsets must be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such offsets shall be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth Section 95972, subdivision (a) of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not include offsets originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the City and/or the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Such credits must be purchased through one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the CAPCOA GHG Rx and any program adopted the MBARD. The effectiveness of the GHG reduction measures included in the GGRP must be verifiable based on evidence presented in the GGRP. Representative GHG reduction measures which may be considered may include, but are not limited to:
• Measures identified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures or updates to this document as may occur from time to time.
• Applicable measures identified in guidance from MBARD, if any, and/or in guidance provided by the California Air Resources Board, other regional air districts such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, or other agencies with adopted GHG reduction guidance that is applicable on the date the project application is deemed complete by the City.

If the project applicant concludes that sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance (i.e., per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2050), the project applicant shall include substantial evidence in the GGRP to this effect. The GGRP shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salinas Community Development Department prior to approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GGRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-39 independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to meet the thresholds of significance. In making this determination, the Community Development Department shall consider the feasibility of imposing additional measures, including requiring the applicant to purchase any additional qualifying carbon offsets that might be available in the marketplace or through development of a local or regional program that could produce additional qualifying offsets. “Feasibility” in this context shall focus on the technical viability and overall cost of such additional measures, including carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such measures (i) are technologically feasible, (ii) would substantially increase the cost of proposed housing, or (iii) would render the proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601. After the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GGRP shall be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. The Planning Commission shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a GGRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered.

Implementation of this mitigation measure shall not be required if the City has a qualified GHG reduction plan in place on the date a future individual project application subject to the GHG reduction plan is deemed complete, the qualified GHG reduction plan reflects the most recent legislatively-adopted GHG reduction targets (e.g., the 2030 target set by SB 32), includes an inventory of projected GHG emissions from development within the Plan Area, and includes GHG reduction measures applicable to development within the Plan Area whose implementation is required as a condition of approval of such projects.

Pages ES-31 and ES-32:

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the approval of the tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project applicant shall prepare a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) aimed at achieving specific performance standards. The GGRP may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and shall include the following:
3) The GGRP shall achieve, if feasible, a per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050.
4) Calculation of GHG emissions projection using an acceptable modeling tool such as the most recent version of CalEEMod.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan District (MBARD). Such credits must be purchased through one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the CAPCOA GHG Rx and any program adopted the MBARD. The effectiveness of the GHG reduction measures included in the GGRP must be verifiable based on evidence presented in the GGRP. Representative GHG reduction measures which may be considered may include, but are not limited to:
• Measures identified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures or updates to this document as may occur from time to time.
• Applicable measures identified in guidance from MBARD, if any, and/or in guidance provided by the California Air Resources Board, other regional air districts such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, or other agencies with adopted GHG reduction guidance that is applicable on the date the project application is deemed complete by the City.

If the project applicant concludes that sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance (i.e., per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2050), the project applicant shall include substantial evidence in the GGRP to this effect. The GGRP shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salinas Community Development Department prior to approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GGRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to meet the thresholds of significance. In making this determination, the Community Development Department shall consider the feasibility of imposing additional measures, including requiring the applicant to purchase any additional qualifying carbon offsets that might be available in the marketplace or through development of a local or regional program that could produce additional qualifying offsets. “Feasibility” in this context shall focus on the technical viability and overall cost of such additional measures, including carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such measures (i) are technologically feasible, (ii) would substantially increase the cost of proposed housing, or (iii) would render the proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601. After the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GGRP shall be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. The Planning Commission shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a GGRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered.

Implementation of this mitigation measure shall not be required if the City has a qualified GHG reduction plan in place on the date a future individual project application subject to the GHG reduction plan is deemed complete, the qualified GHG reduction plan reflects the most recent legislatively-adopted GHG COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-41 reduction targets (e.g., the 2030 target set by SB 32), includes an inventory of projected GHG emissions from development within the Plan Area, and includes GHG reduction measures applicable to development within the Plan Area whose implementation is required as a condition of approval of such projects.

Response E-5: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR finds:

With the design and construction of flood control improvements, and with implementation of the mitigation measures included in this section, the Central Area Specific Plan would not increase peak stormwater runoff. The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Monterey County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures would control peak stormwater runoff. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with stormwater runoff. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution to stormwater runoff.

Please address if the hydrologic analyses evaluate increased intensity of storm events resulting from climate change. If not, please identify climate change impacts on hydrologic resources.”
This comment is noted. Hydrologic analysis that includes the potential for increased intensity of storm events resulting from climate change is speculative at this time, since the magnitude of any potential increased storm intensity from climate change influencing the region is uncertain and highly dependent on a variety of factors that cannot currently be known with a high level of certainty.

For example, according to the California Energy Commission (CEC) “Cal-Adapt” tool, by mid-century, there is a wide range in predictions regarding the change in the number of extreme precipitation events. In particular, there are four separate models provided for the estimated intensity (return level) of extreme precipitation events which are exceeded on average once every 20 years. Out of the four model results for mid-century (i.e. October 2035 – September 2064), two models show slightly increased estimated intensity, one model shows approximately equal estimated intensity, and one model shows reduced estimated intensity, the historical (i.e. October 1961 – September 1990) case. More information can be found at the Cal-Adapt website: https://caladapt.org/tools/extreme-precipitation/.

Response E-6: The commentor states that:
“Implementation of the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan would add up to 3,911 new residential units and 14,353 residents at project build-out. It is estimated that school enrollment would increase between 3,590 and 4,033 students for the Salinas Unified School District, Alisal Unified School District and Santa Rita Unified School District.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The DEIR finds the following impact on schools:

Impact 3.9-3: Project implementation may result in the need for the construction of new schools, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Significant and Unavoidable).

As noted in the DEIR, Government Code Section 65996 limits development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 to impacts caused by new development. In other words, a nexus must exist between project impacts and mitigation fees. The DEIR further indicates that while it is the City’s responsibility to collect impact fees, it is the school districts’ responsibility to find the resources to fund schools:

Ultimately, the Education Code tasks the affected School Districts with the responsibility for design and construction of their own schools. (p. 3.9-29) The DEIR finds "Impact 3.9-6: Under cumulative conditions the proposed project may result in the construction of public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)." The cumulative impact analysis for public facilities includes schools; however, it fails to quantify impacts resulting from total students expected to attend the various schools affected by the Central Area and West Area Specific Plans – an estimated student enrollment increase of 5,515 to 6,387 students.

Due to limitations of Government Code Section 65996, we recommend the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure 3.9-2. Approval of developments within the Central Area Specific Plan is conditioned upon the availability of classroom capacity.

Determination of available capacity shall take into account the requirements of both the Central Area Specific Plan and the cumulative demand from other areas sharing the same school facilities, such as the previously approved West Area Specific Plan.

Finally, as noted in the DEIR for the WASP, “This does not mean, however, that a city or county is powerless to require new development to take the steps needed to ensure adequate public services, such as law enforcement service. Such steps are simply beyond the scope of CEQA. They should instead be imposed under some other body of State statutory law (e.g., the Planning and Zoning Law [Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.] or the Subdivision Map Act [Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.]) or under a local government’s broad police power under the California Constitution. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7; Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist.(1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885.)” (WASP DEIR p.3.9-16) LandWatch recommends the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure 3.9-4. The City of Salinas shall coordinate efforts with the Salinas Unified School District, the Alisal Unified School District and the Santa Rita Unified School District to raise revenue to fund schools to increase classroom COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-43 capacity required by implementation of the Central Area and West Area Specific Plans.

This comment is noted. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The development allowed under the Specific Plan would be required to pay all applicable school impact fees in effect upon the time of or prior to the issuance of building permits.

The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction. However, even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, if the proposed development requires the construction or expansion of additional facilities that would cause other physical environmental impacts, then those physical impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v.

Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1028.) The City did so here, as the physical impacts associated with school construction are considered as part of the overall proposed Specific Plan.

Government Code section 65996 (see Draft EIR, p. 3.9-20) prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities. Tentative map approvals are adjudicative acts, and thus are subject to this statutory prohibition. (See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [tentative map approvals are quasi-adjudicatory].)
Nevertheless, the City is committed to working closely with the school districts. It is noted that the development team has met with the Alisal School District, and School Site Solutions (a consultant) regarding student generation and school facility needs within the Plan Area dating back to approximately 2006. Between the beginning of this consultation effort and present day, the overall layout of the Land Use Plan, including the number of, and location of school facilities, has not changed much.

State law limits the City’s ability to consider the potential for school overcrowding as a basis for approving or denying proposed projects, and limits the City’s options for attempting to mitigate such overcrowding. While school districts in California face funding challenges, the Legislature and Governor keep reminding cities of the importance of building housing units to address a statewide housing crisis. As noted in Chapter 3.8 (Population and Housing), the Legislature has recently found that “[t]he lack of housing … is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a).) The Central Area Specific Plan has been long in coming, and reflects City and County growth management decisions made long ago. (See Chapter 2, Project Description, § 2.2, Project Goals and Objectives.) The City hopes and expects that, over time, the Districts will gain access to the resources they need to serve the future students of the proposed Specific Plan Area. The City intends to work closely with the Districts to

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan help to facilitate such an outcome.

Response E-7: The commentor states that:
“The transportation analysis is based on determining consistency of the proposed project with LOS standards. (DEIR p. 3.10-9) While it acknowledges requirements of Senate Bill 743, the DEIR does not address the new CEQA requirements for assessing transportation impacts.

The Central Area Specific Plan is estimated to generate a total of approximately 183,808 average daily vehicle miles travelled (Average Daily VMT) at project buildout (Table 3.10-11). The West Area Specific Plan is estimated to generate a total of approximately 221,017 average daily vehicle miles travelled (Average Daily VMT) at project buildout. (DEIR 3.4-46). Under the CEQA requirements for traffic analysis to be implemented by July 1, 2020, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Please address the project level and cumulative impacts on transportation based on this criterion as applied to the project area consisting of the City of Salinas.”
This comment is noted. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 now requires VMT analysis for Draft EIR issued on July 1, 2020, or later. The provision is clear, however, that it does not apply to Draft EIRs, such as the one for the Central Area Specific Plan, issued before that date. Specifically, subdivision (c) of that provision states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in [CEQA Guidelines] section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” Section 15007, subsection (b), provides “Amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only. New requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments.” Importantly, subsection (c) further clarifies that: “If a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is set out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” Thus, a VMT analysis is not required to be included in a Draft EIR released for public review and comment prior to July 1, 2020. And where a Draft EIR has been issued prior to July 1st, the Final EIR need not address the issue either. Jeannie Lee, legal counsel in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, has publicly stated in webcasts earlier this year that this is the correct approach to the new VMT requirement. No further response is warranted.

Response E-8: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR finds:

The proposed project has the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (Less than Significant) (DEIR, p.3-11-37) This finding is based on estimated on the following:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-45 The estimated 3,648 AFY ground water pumping for existing agricultural use in the Central Area Specific Plan is 813 AFY more than the maximum total buildout estimated water demand for the Central Area Specific Plan, which is 2,835 AFY.

Therefore, the total buildout estimated water demand for the Central Area Specific Plan is projected to use less water than required for current irrigated agricultural uses. (DEIR p. 3.6-35)
While the project would use less water than current uses, it would continue to draw groundwater from a critically overdrafted groundwater basin. Because the basin continues to be severely overdrafted with unfunded projects identified in the SBVGSA GSP for the 180/400-foot Subbasin to reverse the trend, the City should find that water supplies are not sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to the existing and planned future uses.

The DEIR's comparison of a water supply used by agriculture and housing does not reflect the actual impact of committing a water supply to housing. Agricultural water demand is seasonal and can be discontinued if water is not available for some period or not available permanently. Unlike the use of water for agriculture, the use of water for housing requires a permanent commitment to protect the substantial capital investment for housing. Thus, for example, MCWRA has exempted certain non-agricultural uses from pumping restrictions.

As part of the mandated Sustainable Groundwater Plan, SGMA would require cutbacks in groundwater use if there were no other methods available to attain a sustainable basin.

Currently, there are no funded, approved groundwater management projects that have the potential to prevent seawater intrusion and overdraft conditions, so cutbacks are the only certain means of SGMA compliance. Thus, the commitment of groundwater that is now used for agriculture on an interruptible basis to be used instead for housing on a non-interruptible basis will limit the options for the future groundwater management. The EIR fails to disclose this conflict with the adopted SGMA plan for the 180-400 Aquifer Subbasin.

Diversion of groundwater to housing may deny groundwater to agriculture. As noted, unlike agricultural wells, municipal supply wells may be exempted from existing and future moratoriums on groundwater pumping. Accordingly, the EIR must acknowledge that the replacement of interruptible water demand with uninterruptible demand is a significant impact, even if the urban demand is less than the displaced agricultural demand. Please evaluate the effect on competing uses, including agricultural uses and industrial uses, of committing a non-interruptible supply of water for the proposed housing.

The DEIR finds the project would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the groundwater basin (DEIR p. 3.11-43.) However, the DEIR cumulative water supply impact analysis assumes, without evidence, that there is no impact from replacing agricultural land with urban uses as long as the on-site water use declines. It should not be assumed that the water impact analysis can be confined to the on-site effects of replacing agricultural land with urban uses. Trend analysis of urbanization of agricultural land and of conversions of habitat land to agriculture indicate that displacement of agricultural use by

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan urbanization causes conversion of additional habitat land to provide replacement farmland.

For example, the 2010 Monterey County General Plan EIR projects that 10,253 acres of farmland will be added to the SVGB by conversion of previously uncultivated land available in the SVGB. (Final EIR, Monterey County General Plan, March 2010, p. 2-36, available at https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=45384.) That analysis assumed that 2,571 acres of farmland would be lost to urbanization within the unincorporated area of the county during the life of the County General Plan. (Draft EIR, Monterey County General Plan, September 2008, p. 4.2-12, available at
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=43988.) Consistent with this analysis, the West Area Specific Plan DEIR acknowledges that for every acre of agricultural land converted to urban uses, ten acres of previously unirrigated land (e.g., range land or open space land) have been converted to agricultural use. (WASP DEIR, p. 3.11-42.) It is clear that conversion of land for new cultivation within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin exceeds the loss of agricultural land to urbanization. The evidence is that there is a continuing demand for new irrigated land in the Salinas Valley. Accordingly, the conversion of the project site to urban uses, displacing existing agricultural use, could accelerate conversions of previously uncultivated land for agriculture, with the net effect of an increase in cumulative water demand from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, even if the demand at the newly urbanized site declines. Thus, there is no basis to assume that the project’s new water use will not increase overall water use in the Salinas Valley.

In light of moratoria on pumping in the 400-foot and Deep Aquifers, groundwater supplies may be cut back further in the future to address the currently unsustainable state of groundwater pumping in the Basin. The County, MCWRA, and the SVGBGSA all have the authority to order such cutbacks in the use of groundwater. So far, the moratoria have exempted water used for municipal supply purposes and have thus disproportionately targeted agricultural. Again, the evidence is that demand for agricultural land use is increasing and that displaced agricultural land is being replaced by conversion of other areas in the Valley to irrigated agriculture. Please evaluate the effect on the demand for additional agricultural land conversions within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin caused by displacing the existing agricultural use from the project site. Please estimate the water demand from new agricultural conversions that are attributable to this displacement.” The commentor states that the City should find that water supplies are not sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to the existing and planned future uses. As identified under Impact 3.11-5 of the Draft EIR, the water supply assessments completed for the proposed project demonstrate that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the proposed project, to the year 2035, under all hydrologic conditions. Additionally, Cal Water and ALCO have sufficient water supply throughout their service areas to serve the proposed project, even during the third year of a multiyear drought, and even if the proposed project’s groundwater wells proved to not be sufficient to serve the entire Plan Area. The Central Area Specific Plan proposes to construct three wells, with COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-47 well locations are chosen on the basis of water quality and potential production capabilities. The new wells, in addition to the existing water capacity as provided by Cal Water and ALCO, would ensure that the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources.

Moreover, as acknowledged in this comment, the development of the Central Area Specific Plan would reduce consumption of groundwater (equivalent to increasing groundwater storage), when compared to the existing agricultural uses; this would also have the effect of reducing the potential for seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin, when compared to the existing agricultural uses.

As provided under Impact 3.1-5 of the Draft EIR, estimated groundwater pumping for existing irrigated agricultural use in the Specific Plan Area is 3,648 AFY. The estimated 3,648 AFY ground water pumping for existing agricultural use in the Central Area Specific Plan is 813 AFY more than the maximum total buildout estimated water demand for the Central Area Specific Plan, which is 2,835 AFY. Therefore, the total buildout estimated water demand for the Central Area Specific Plan is projected to use less water than required for current irrigated agricultural uses. Therefore, city water supplies would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to the existing and planned future uses. This is also true under cumulative conditions, as provided under Impact 3.11-6 (as identified on pages 3.11-43 through

3.11-45 of the Draft EIR).

Additionally, the City does not control any land use decision that is made outside the boundary of the City limits. Instead, the County of Monterey is the local land use authority that is responsible for land use decisions in the unincorporated boundary. The Agricultural Commission also has responsibility for agricultural use in the unincorporated parts of Monterey County. The notion that the City’s action in approving the Specific Plan (should that occur) would be the proximate cause of the conversion of habitat lands to agricultural uses somewhere else is speculative. Even if it were true that the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses sometimes facilitates the conversion of habitat lands to agricultural uses, it would be speculative for the City to try to predict exactly where with the Monterey County region such conversions might occur. Too many potential variables exist to allow for any kind of informed prediction, as any conversions of habitat lands to agriculture would occur only due to a multitude of individual decisions by individual actors in light of factors such as the cost of land, soil types in various areas, the cost of securing irrigation water, crop demands, crop prices, and the like. Any such conversions might also require discretionary decisions by Monterey County that could trigger CEQA review that would allow for public input prior to the conversion. At such times, issues relating to groundwater overdraft could be vetted. “[W]here future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences.” (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 399.)
The Specific Plan Area is currently located on irrigated agricultural land. Hence, water demand from their development with urban uses will replace water demand for irrigation. Urban water supply to Salinas is currently derived exclusively from groundwater. Cal Water extracts groundwater from two hydraulically connected subbasins of the groundwater basin known as the Pressure Subarea and the

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan East Side Subarea. Much of the water supply for Salinas is extracted from the Pressure Subarea, while ALCO extracts its groundwater from the East Side Subarea. The Pressure Area is a region of gradually declining groundwater elevations and is characterized by three confined aquifer systems, overlain and separated by thick clay layers that act as aquicludes. These aquifers are named for their relative depths, and are known as the “180-foot", the “400-foot”, and “900-foot” aquifers, respectively.

It is acknowledged that, even though the proposed project would reduce groundwater pumping because it would replace agriculture with land uses with lower water demands, urban land uses cannot be fallowed. Therefore, the proposed project represents a more permanent, unchangeable demand on the groundwater basin than the current agricultural land uses. However, in 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA shifted planning and management of groundwater resources to Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, which are made up of local agencies (e.g. cities, counties, and water districts). The SGMA requires development of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) by 2020 for priority basins, which includes the Salinas Valley. This law requires groundwater basins or subbasins that are designated as medium or high priority to be managed sustainably. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVBGSA) was therefore required to develop a comprehensive groundwater sustainability plan by 2020 and is also required to implement the plan to achieve basin sustainability by 2040. In compliance with this requirement, the SVBGSA developed the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability (GSP). The GSP identifies that sustainability of the SVGB will be achieved over the 20-year implementation period and maintained over the 50-year planning and implementation horizon. Since a long-term solution to the region’s groundwater sustainability is required by the State by 2040, and since buildout of the proposed project would take approximately 20 to 30 years, the region’s groundwater is required by law to be in a sustainable state by the time of project buildout. Therefore, despite that the proposed project would require a more permanent, unchangeable demand on the groundwater basin than the current agricultural uses, the State’s requirement for long-term sustainability of the underlying groundwater basin ensures that the impact to groundwater would be less than significant.

As identified above, the relevant GSP is the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which was adopted by the SVBGSA Board of Directors on January 9, 2020. The GSP identifies projects and actions that provide stakeholders with options to reach sustainability of the underlying aquifer, including with regard to seawater intrusion. This approach provides individual landowners and public entities flexibility in how they manage water and how the Subbasin achieves groundwater sustainability. All groundwater pumpers will be allowed to make individual decisions on how much groundwater they pump based on their perceived best interests. The projects and actions included in the GSP are defined as a toolbox of options. The GSP demonstrates that sufficient options exist to reach sustainability. The projects and actions in the GSP include a water charges framework, management actions, specific projects prioritized for integrated management of the Salinas Valley, mitigation of overdraft, and other groundwater management activities. Specific details need to be developed for stakeholders to determine which projects and actions to implement. The projects and management actions described in this GSP constitute an integrated management program for the entire SVGB. This GSP COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-49 lays out a roadmap for addressing all of the activities needed for GSP implementation between 2020 and 2040, focusing mainly on the activities between 2020 and 2025. Although there are unfunded projects identified in the GSP for the 180/400-foot Subbasin, the law requires a solution to the region’s groundwater sustainability by 2040. Therefore, since it is required by state law, sufficient funding is required to be made available to achieve sustainability in the SVGB by 2040.

Moreover, since the 2010 Monterey County General Plan Final EIR, new groundwater regulatory programs have been established that are relevant to the SVGB. For example, Senate Bill (SB) 252 became effective on January 1, 2018. SB 252, which requires well permit applicants in critically overdrafted basins to include information about the proposed well, such as location, depth, and pumping capacity. The bill also requires the permitting agency to make the information easily accessible to the public and the GSAs. Separately, On May 22, 2018, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 5302 pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. The ordinance was an Interim Urgency Ordinance, which took effect immediately upon adoption. The ordinance prohibits the acceptance or processing of any applications for new wells in the defined Area of Impact within the 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin, with stated exceptions including municipal wells and replacement wells. The ordinance was originally only effective for 45 days, but at the June 26 Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board of Supervisors extended the ordinance to May 21, 2020, by adoption of Ordinance No. 5303. During the moratorium, the County has stated that it will conduct further studies to assess groundwater conditions in the Subbasin.

Ultimately, a projection of what could occur should be tempered by the reality of limited water supplies. Although the 2010 Monterey County General Plan EIR projected that 10,253 acres of farmland will be added to the SVGB by conversion of previously uncultivated land available in the SVGB (Final EIR, Monterey County General Plan, March 2010, p. 2-36, available at https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=45384.), the SGMA was passed four years after the publication of the Final EIR for the Monterey County General Plan, in 2014. The SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically over-drafted basins, that will be 2040. That is, the SVGB is required under the SGMA to reach sustainability within the anticipated 20 to 30-year buildout timeframe of the proposed project.

Specifically, the GSP projects that, to achieve sustainability in the SVGB, pumping will need to be about 7% lower than the pumping rates projected prior to the development of the GSP, to meet the long-term sustainable yield. The projected water budgets can be interpreted as most likely future conditions; however, there is inherent uncertainty associated with using climate scenarios.

Implementation of some items within the men measures identified in the GSP would ensure that the SVGB reaches sustainability by 2040. Therefore, regardless of the level of future conversion of vacant land (that is currently not using groundwater) to groundwater-consuming agricultural land, the SVGB would be required to reach sustainability by 2040 (i.e. by project buildout), which means

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan that there would not be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the groundwater basin, contrary to the claim made in this comment.

Regardless, with the GPS in place, and as the region moves towards a sustainable groundwater situation by 2040 under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, any new groundwater pumping will have to operate within the legal framework set forth by the GSP. As identified in the GSP, the measurable objectives for reduction in groundwater storage is to achieve a long-term future sustainable yield of 112,000 acre-feet/year. Independent conversions of vacant land to agricultural land within the SVGB would be required to be consistent with this long-term objective.

The GSP identifies a wide menu of measures, which allow flexibility in determining the specific measures utilized to achieve this objective. No further response is warranted.

Response E-9: The commentor states that:
“The DEIR finds the cumulative impact on stormwater facilities to be Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable (DEIR p. 3.11-65).

Please address if the analysis evaluates increased intensity of storm events resulting from climate change. If not, please identify climate change impacts on stormwater facilities.” This comment is noted. The cumulative analysis of stormwater facilities does not evaluate increased intensity of storm events resulting from climate change. However, analysis of stormwater facilities with respect to climate change is speculative at this time, since the magnitude of any potential increased storm intensity from climate change influencing the region is uncertain and highly dependent on a variety of factors that cannot currently be known with a high level of certainty.

Response E-10: The commentor states that:
“The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives:
• No Project (No Build) Alternative
• Reduced Land Area Project Alternative – Under this alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with the same components as described in the Project Description, but the area utilized for the development (i.e., the project footprint) would be reduced by approximately 14 percent. Under this alternative, COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-51 approximately 110 acres of land in the northwest corner of the Plan Area would be removed. The resultant Plan Area would include approximately 652 acres.

The proposed land uses within this area identified for removal under this alternative would be incorporated into the remaining 652 acres of the Plan Area, which would increase the residential density of the Plan Area under this alternative, while retaining the same number of residences, mixed use commercial areas, schools, parks, etc. as the proposed project. • Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative • Smaller-Scale Project Alternative
The Reduced Intensity/Density Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative (DEIR p. 5.0-48).

As noted above, increased density will reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. Table ES-1 should be revised to reflect this additional benefit of the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative with respect to Air Quality Impacts. Table ES-1 should also be corrected to reflect an “equal” impact on Population and Housing from the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, not a “slightly greater” impact. The DEIR so acknowledges that the impact would be equal because it would accommodate the same number of residential units (EIR, p. 5.0- 26). As discussed above, Tables ES-1 and 5.0-8 should be revised to disclose that the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have lesser impacts on agricultural land loss than the proposed project.

Table 5.0-1, which assesses the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives, concludes that the Reduced Land Area Project Alterative does not meet the goal of:

Creating a community in which housing, businesses, parks, schools and other community facilities are within walking distance of each other and which is pedestrian-friendly through a network of community pathways, thereby reducing traffic congestion, noise, excessive energy consumption, air pollution and the potential for vehicle accidents and/or incidents.

This conclusion flies in the face of the facts that the smaller, denser Specific Plan that would accommodate the same population in a smaller area would necessarily reduce its internal walking distances and reduce emissions, congestion, and excessive energy consumption. The DEIR’s rationale for this surprising conclusion relates solely to the external walking distance from the West Area Specific Plan to other Specific Plan areas:

The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would not meet this objective since it would reduce geographic pathways between the Specific Plan Area and the West Area Specific Plan, which were designed in tandem in a specific manner to allow for a community within the FGA in which housing, businesses, parks, schools and other community facilities are within walking distance of each other.

This claim is illogical because leaving some land undeveloped will not increase the distance from the developed areas of the Central Area Specific Plan to external locations. Table 5.0-1

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan should be revised to correct this error. A smaller denser community is clearly more pedestrian–friendly.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR.

This comment is noted. We concur that the increased density of the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative with respect to Air Quality impacts will slightly reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. However, the increased density will also increase risks associated with other emissions such as odors (Impact 3.1-4) and health risks to humans (Impact 3.1-5), since the increased density would marginally increase the localized density (and thereby impact) of localized emissions on residents and workers. It should be noted that the “equal” impact for Population and Housing from the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative was already provided in relevant tables, in contrast to the claim made on the comment letter on this topic (so there is no fix required on that topic).

Separately, the City disagrees with the assertion that the Reduced Land Area Alternative would meet the goal of “Creating a community in which housing, businesses, parks, schools and other community facilities are within walking distance of each other and which is pedestrian-friendly through a network of community pathways, thereby reducing traffic congestion, noise, excessive energy consumption, air pollution and the potential for vehicle accidents and/or incidents.” As identified in Table 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR, despite the smaller, denser nature of the Reduced Land Area Project alternative, it is anticipated that the reduction of the project footprint by approximately 14% associated with this alternative would remove portions of the Specific Plan Area that would connect the Specific Plan Area to neighboring portions of the North of Boronda FGA, such as the West Area Specific Plan, or the future East Area Specific Plan (depending on the exact location of the area to be removed). Therefore, despite reduced walking distances that may be associated with this alternative, reduced connectivity to neighboring Specific Plan areas, which have been designed specifically to provide specific bike and pedestrian pathways to geographically connect the Specific Plan Areas to each other, would be likely mean that this objective would not be achieved by this alternative.

Lastly, additional minor errata changes to fix transcription errors are also included in the errata changes to Table ES-1 and 5.0-8, below.

Based on this comment, we have updated pages 5.0-51 and ES-9 of the Draft EIR as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text,strike out for deleted text):

Page 5 ends

TABLE 5.0-8: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC

PROPOSED
PROJECT1

NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

LAND AREA

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

RESIDENTIAL

INTENSITY/DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
SMALLERSCALE

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.1 -AIR QUALITY (AQ)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-53

ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC

PROPOSED
PROJECT1

NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

LAND AREA

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

RESIDENTIAL

INTENSITY/DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
SMALLERSCALE

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE
AQ Impact

3.1-1
LS Equal Equal Greater Greater
AQ Impact

3.1-2 SU Less EqualSlightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-3 LS/MM Less EqualSlightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-4 LS/MM Less EqualSlightly Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-5
LS/MM Slightly
Less
EqualSlightly
Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-6 LS Slightly Greater Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-76
CC & SU Slightly
Less Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less
Page ES-9:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC

PROPOSED
PROJECT1

NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

LAND AREA

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

RESIDENTIAL

INTENSITY/DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
SMALLERSCALE

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.1 -AIR QUALITY (AQ)
AQ Impact

3.1-1
LS Equal Equal Greater Greater
AQ Impact

3.1-2 SU Less EqualSlightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-3
LS/MM Less EqualSlightly
Less Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-4
LS/MM Less EqualSlightly
Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-5
LS/MM Slightly
Less
EqualSlightly
Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-6 LS Slightly Greater Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-7
CC & SU Slightly
Less Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less
No further response is required.

Response E-11: The commentor identifies additional greenhouse gas mitigation measures to consider (in addition to the greenhouse gas mitigation measures listed on page 4-5 of the main Landwatch letter). Discussion of these mitigation measures is incorporated into Response E-4. No further response is required.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-55 F-1

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-1
(continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-57 F-1
(continued)
F-2

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-2
(continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-59 F-2
(continued)
F-3

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-3
(continued)
F-4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-61 F-4
(continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-4
(continued)
F-5
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-63 F-5
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-5
(Continued)
F-6
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-65 F-6
(Continued)
F-7

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-66 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan F-8
F-7
(Continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-67 F-8
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-69

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-71 Response to Letter F: Julie A. Vance, California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Response F-1: The commentor provides an introduction to the comment letter. The commentor describes the role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as both a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State), and as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The commentor also provides a brief summary project description of the proposed project, and states that the CDFW offers the comments and recommendations provided in the remaining portions of the comment letter to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

The commentor further states:
“There are many special-status resources present in and adjacent to the Project area. These resources may need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities or land use changes. The DEIR indicates there is potential significant impact unless mitigation measures are taken but the measures listed are general and may be inadequate to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to: the State and federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), the State endangered foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), the federally threatened California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii),the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and special-status plants, including the State endangered Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). In order to adequately assess any potential impacts to biological resources, focused biological surveys should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist/botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any special-status species and/or suitable habitat features may be present within the Project area. Properly conducted biological surveys, and the information assembled from them, are essential to identify any mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures and/or the need for additional or protocol-level surveys, especially in the areas not in irrigated agriculture, and to identify any Project-related impacts under CESA and other species of concern.”
The concerns described by this comment are responded to in full in the following responses (Responses F-2 through F-8). This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter and no further response is required.

Response F-2: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 1: California Tiger Salamander (CTS)
Issue: The DEIR states the Project has the potential to significantly impact CTS. A

0.25-acre agricultural basin may provide potential breeding habitat for CTS and remnant upland habitat features and/or small mammal burrows may provide refugia for CTS dispersing from or into the Project area. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 states that a biologist with a scientific colleting permit (SCP) shall oversee the

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan excavation of burrows, inspect exclusion fencing, and relocate any CTS found on the Project site. However, SCPs cannot be used to mitigate project impacts. If a biologist were to conduct the activities as described in the Mitigation Measure, it would violate both the SCP and CESA, resulting in unauthorized take. Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code, § 86) defines take as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or the attempt to do so. Several of the actions listed in Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would be defined as take. For example, relocating CTS or if CTS is trapped within an exclusion this constitutes capture. Therefore, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b), is required to implement these actions and comply with CESA.

Specific Impacts: Potential ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with Project activities include: water inundation as a result of the proposed new reservoir, collapse of small mammal burrows, inadvertent entrapment, loss of upland refugia and breeding sites, water quality impacts to breeding sites, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact would be significant: Up to 75% of historic CTS habitat has been lost to urban and agricultural development (Searcy et al. 2013). The Project site is within the range of CTS and has suitable habitat features. CTS have been determined to be physiologically capable of dispersing up to approximately 1.5 miles from seasonally flooded wetlands (Searcy and Shaffer 2011) and have been documented to occur near the Project site (CDFW 2020). Given the presence of suitable habitat within the Project site, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to significantly impact local populations of CTS.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Because suitable habitat features for CTS are present throughout the Project site, CDFW recommends the following edits to the DEIR prepared for this Project.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1:

CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct protocol-level surveys in accordance with the USFWS “Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander” (USFWS 2003) at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of CTS breeding and refugia habitat, and subsequently if CTS are present on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. These surveys will inform what, if any, take authorization is required from CDFW to comply with CESA.

Please note the protocol-level surveys for CTS require more than one survey season and are dependent upon sufficient rainfall to complete. As a result, consultation with CDFW and the USFWS is recommended well in advance of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities. CDFW advises that the protocol-level survey include a 100-foot buffer around the Project area in all areas of wetland and upland habitat that could support CTS. Please be advised that protocol-level survey results are viable for two years after the results are reviewed by CDFW.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-73 Mitigation Measure 3.2-2:

As stated above, several of the actions listed in Mitigation Measure of 3.2-2 require an ITP to ensure compliance with CESA. CDFW recommends changing SCP to ITP throughout the measure to accurately represent what is required to secure the appropriate take authorization of CTS to minimize Project impacts. In addition, if through surveys it is determined that CTS are occupying or have the potential to occupy the Project site, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization would also be warranted prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities to comply with CESA. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b). In the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Project site and obtain an ITP from CDFW.” This comment is noted. Based on this comment, we have updated Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and

3.2-2 of the Draft EIR, as follows, to incorporate the recommended language into these mitigation measures, as well as the associated mitigation measures contained in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR, as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

Pages 3.2-40 and 3.2-41:

MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project applicant, assisted by a qualified biologist, shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals and authorizations regarding CTS. It is anticipated that the applicant would need to coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW on any additional survey needs, beyond the surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already been performed on this site for this species, during the consultation process. The surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already been performed, in addition to any additional survey needs, will inform what, if any, take authorization is required from CDFW to comply with CESA. Consultation with CDFW and the USFWS shall be conducted well in advance of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities.

The regulatory approvals are This is anticipated to include the need to submit an application for incidental take to both the USFWS (Section 7 Consultation) and CDFW (2081 incidental take permit). The project applicant’s qualified biologist shall report the conclusions reached through such consultation to the City’s Community Development Director. If either USFWS or CDFW determines that an incidental take permit is required, the project applicant shall obtain such a permit before engaging in any grading or other site-treatment activities in areas deemed to be viable CTS habitat.

It is anticipated that compensatory mitigation will be necessary for the loss of aquatic habitat associated with the 0.25-acre agricultural basin located on the east side of Natividad

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of East Boronda Road. At a minimum, the restoration and habitat creation of up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres along Natividad Creek (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project) shall include ponded/basin areas that provide aquatic breeding habitat opportunities for CTS within the Specific Plan Area. The required amount of ponded/basin areas shall not be less than the 0.25 acres which is equivalent to the anticipated habitat loss, but the final calculation of aquatic habitat needed to compensate for that loss shall be determined by the USFWS and/or CDFW through the permit process. Additionally, the replacement aquatic habitat shall be designed with similar characteristics as the known 0.25-acre breeding pond including depths of at least five feet, and establishment of submergent and emergent vegetation around the perimeter of the pond/basin. All submergent and emergent vegetation around the pond/basin shall be from mature plantings to ensure that significant vegetation is established in the first year (i.e. no seeding or hydroseeding).

CTS migration and dispersal functions between breeding and aestivation sites shall be appropriately considered when designing and locating new aquatic breeding habitat within the creek corridors. The final restoration and habitat creation design shall be subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to California tiger salamander to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with all Avoidance and Minimization Measures imposed by the USFWS and CDFW during Construction Activities. Examples of standard avoidance and minimization measures include: 1) conducting environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) having a biologist with an incidental take permit (ITP)scientific collecting permit for CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with an ITP scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CTS migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CTS found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report. Any disturbance/decommissioning of the basin that is a known breeding site, shall be performed under the direction of the USFWS and/or CDFW. The decommissioning of this basin shall be performed during the non-breeding season.

In addition, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization would be required prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities to comply with CESA. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b). In the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Plan Area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-75 No further response is warranted.

Response F-3: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 2: Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (FYLF) and California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) Issue: FYLF are primarily stream dwelling and require shallow, flowing water in streams and rivers with at least some cobble-sized substrate; CRLF primarily inhabit ponds but can also be found in other waterways including marshes, streams, and lagoons, and both species will also breed in ephemeral waters (Thomson et al. 2016). CRLF have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project site (CDFW 2020). In the DEIR, it states that there is less than significant impacts to FYLF because there are no documented occurrences in the Project vicinity and there is no potential for the species to occur on the Project site, but also states there are limited habitat features that may be suitable for FYLF. Based on statements provided in the DEIR, it is unclear if FYLF have the potential to occur on or near the Project site. FYLF have been reduced to limited populations in Monterey County and any impact to FYLF that may occur in the Project area is potentially significant.

Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for FYLF, potentially significant impacts associated with the Project’s activities include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs, larvae and/or young, loss of habitat, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact would be significant: FYLF populations throughout their southern range, including Monterey County, have experienced ongoing and drastic declines and many have been extirpated; historically, FYLF occurred in mountain streams from the San Gabriel River in Los Angeles County to southern Oregon west of the Sierra-Cascade crest (Thomson et al. 2016). Habitat loss from growth of cities and suburbs, invasion of nonnative plants, impoundments, water diversions, stream maintenance for flood control, degraded water quality, and introduced predators, such as bullfrogs are the primary threats to FYLF (Thomson et al. 2016, USFWS 2017). Project activities have the potential to significantly impact both species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
To evaluate potential impacts to FYLF, CDFW recommends the following edits to the DEIR prepared for this Project.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist determine if FYLF have the potential to occur in the Project area. If this evaluation has already been completed as part of the determination that FYLF cannot occur on the Project site, we recommend that the evaluation is included in the DEIR. If a qualified biologist determines that FYLF have the potential to occur in the Project area, we recommend that this measure is edited to include FYLF in addition to CRLF. The DEIR does not provide the survey method that will be used to determine if CRLF occur in the Project area. CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct surveys for FYLF and/or CRLF in accordance with the USFWS “Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog” (USFWS 2005) to

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan determine if CRLF and, if warranted, FYLF are within or adjacent to the Project area. While this survey is designed for CRLF, the survey may be used for FYLF with focus on stream/river habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-4
If FYLF are detected during pre-construction surveys or at any time during construction, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP is necessary to comply with CESA. Please note that several of the actions required by Mitigation Measure

3.2-4 would be considered take as described above for Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. Therefore, an ITP is required to implement those actions for FYLF. CRLF are not listed pursuant to CESA, and therefore, no ITP is necessary from CDFW for this species.” This comment is noted. For clarification on the FYLF, the DEIR on page 3.2-17 indicates that “Gabilan and Natividad Creek corridors provide some limited habitat for this species; however, none have been observed and this species is not believed to be present within these corridors.” This statement is accurate. The limited habitat is the aquatic habitat that is present in these creeks; however, as noted in the statement, this species has never been observed. To further clarify, these two aquatic features do not have rocky substrate with riffles which are aquatic characteristics needed for breeding, and ultimately persistence of a population of this species. The aquatic features, instead, are heavily silted from agricultural runoff that has occurred for an extended period of time, and in some areas the water feature is completed channelized into a linear ditch form that is not conducive to this species.

Given the characteristics of the aquatic habitat in these water features, it is accurate to conclude that it is unlikely that this species would be present; however, the City has maintained that the aquatic nature of the facility is still considered limited habitat. It is also noted that these features are proposed to be improved to a more natural condition as part of a habitat enhancement.

Approximately 74 acres of riparian habitat would be created along Natividad Creek, and 30 acres along Gabilan Creek. It is anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will require regulatory approval, which would involve the temporary impact to Natividad Creek and Gabilan during the restoration and habitat creation process. The temporary impact to the creek corridor would have the potential to impact some special status species if present during the construction period; however, FYLF is not expected to be present. The restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors, which would be a benefit to the possibility of FYLF establishing a population in the region in the future.

As discussed on page 3.2-41 – 3.2-44 of the DEIR, CRLF was detected along the Natividad Creek corridor within the Specific Plan Area, as well as along Old Stage Road and the East Area Specific Plan located to the east of the Specific Plan Area. The DEIR also notes that there are also numerous documented occurrences of CRLF, including breeding sites within five miles of the Specific Plan Area.

The DEIR notes that CRLF may disperse through any of the drainages in the vicinity, including Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The DEIR also indicates that the Specific Plan Area does not provide high quality habitat for CRLF outside of the creek corridors given that these areas are actively cultivated, COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-77 but that the network of irrigation ditches presents some habitat opportunities for this species outside of the creek corridors. The DEIR states that the paved roads, dirt roads, tilled farmland, farmland fringe, and farmland residences provide very limited to no habitat. These statements are accurate, and do not need revision.

The DEIR concludes with a mitigation measures that requires consultation with the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no illegal take for CRLF. Additionally, the regulatory agencies have established avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that they impose on projects through the regulatory permitting process. These measures would require activities to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF. The DEIR presents examples of standard avoidance and minimization measures include: 1) conducting environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) having a biologist with an incidental take permit (ITP) for CRLF to be responsible for any monitoring, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with an incidental take permit (ITP) every 72 hours, 5) relocation of any CRLF found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 6) post construction report. The regulatory agencies may also require compensatory mitigation for any take, including habitat loss. The determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. The EIR concludes that the impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with the mitigation measures presented.

Response F-4: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 3: Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA)
Issue: SWHA have been documented in the Project vicinity (CDFW 2020) and have the potential to forage and/or nest near or on the Project site. In addition to annual grasslands, SWHA are known to forage in alfalfa, fallow fields, dry-land and irrigated pasture, rice land (during the non-flooded period), cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest), beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops. The DEIR states that there is potential nesting habitat for SWHA near the Project area, but no mitigation measures are provided for this species and the actions listed in Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 alone are unlikely to reduce impacts to less than significant if SHWA are present.

Specific impacts: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for SWHA, potential significant impacts that may result from Project activities include nest abandonment, loss of nest trees, loss of foraging habitat that would reduce nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), and direct mortality. Any take of SWHA without appropriate incidental take authorization would be a violation of Fish and Game Code.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: The Project as proposed will involve noise, groundwork, and movement of workers that could affect nests and has the potential to result in nest abandonment, significantly impacting any nesting SWHA occurring near the Project site.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Because suitable habitat for SWHA is present throughout the Project site, CDFW recommends adding these additional measures to the DEIR and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project. Alternatively, these measures may be incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.2-6.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 1: SWHA Surveys
To evaluate potential impacts, CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct surveys for nesting SWHA following the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC, 2000) prior to project implementation. The survey protocol includes early season surveys to assist the project proponent in implementing necessary avoidance and minimization measures, and in identifying active nest sites prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 2: SWHA No-disturbance Buffer If ground-disturbing Project activities are to take place during the normal bird breeding season (March 1 through September 15), CDFW recommends that additional pre-activity surveys for active nests be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation. While Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 states that a nodisturbance buffer range of 300 feet for an active SWHA nest will be implemented, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of ½-mile be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 3: SWHA Foraging Habitat CDFW recommends compensation for the loss of SWHA foraging habitat to reduce impacts to SWHA foraging habitat to less than significant based on CDFW’s Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (CDFG, 1994), which recommends that mitigation for habitat loss occur within a minimum distance of 10 miles from known nest sites and the amount of habitat compensation is dependent on nest proximity. In addition to fee title acquisition or conservation easement recorded on property with suitable grassland habitat features, mitigation may occur by the purchase of conservation or suitable agricultural easements. Suitable agricultural easements would include areas limited to production of crops such as alfalfa, dry land and irrigated pasture, and cereal grain crops.

Vineyards, orchards, cotton fields, and other dense vegetation do not provide adequate foraging habitat.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 4: SWHA Take Authorization CDFW recommends that in the event an active SWHA nest is detected during surveys and the ½-mile no-disturbance buffer around the nest cannot feasibly be implemented, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the issuance of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b) is necessary to comply with CESA. In addition, compensatory habitat mitigation would be warranted to offset impacts to nesting habitat or habitat utilized by migrating individuals.”
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-79 The commenter has cited “California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020.

Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed July 22, 2020” as a source to verify that the SWHA have been documented in the Project vicinity and to justify an impact conclusion and need for mitigation measures. It is noted that the information that is shown in the referenced CDFW’s BIOs system is from the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), which was used to assess biological resources in the DEIR. In reviewing the specific CNDDB occurrence data for SWHA that is referenced in the CNDDB and BIOS, it is noted that there is only one occurrence of SWHA within a 9 quad search (USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles: Spreckels, Chualar, Gonzales, Mt. Harlan, Salinas, Hollister, Prunedale, San Juan Bautista, and Natividad). This one occurrence is located 6 miles south of Salinas and is from in 1915 (105-year-old record). The CNDDB entry specifically indicates that the collection site is considered extirpated, and it is outside the current range of this species. These ecological comments in the CNDDB record suggest that this species may have once been found within the riparian habitat in the Salinas Valley, but like many species that were once common throughout California, it has been extirpated from the region and their range has been reduced. Most biologists believe that this is generally attributable to agricultural development in a region, in addition to expanding settlements and industrialization.

While the commenter provided extensive information about the potential for an impact to SWHA, and need for mitigation for loss of foraging habitat, the basis for their discussion and their recommendations is based on a flawed understanding or the data that was cited. The Plan Area is not within the SWHA current range; nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 as presented in the DEIR, provides adequate requirements to perform a preconstruction survey for nesting birds, including the SWHA. The DEIR does not require any revisions to address this topic.

Response F-5: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 4: Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Issue: BUOW have been documented near the Project site (CDFW 2020). BUOW inhabit open grassland or adjacent canal banks, ROWs, vacant lots, etc., containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. Review of aerial imagery indicates that some of the Project site is bordered by annual grassland and potentially fallow agricultural fields and may be present within the Project site. Like SWHA, the actions listed in Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 alone are unlikely to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Specific impact: Potentially significant direct impacts associated with subsequent activities include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, nest abandonment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: BUOW rely on burrow habitat year-round for their survival and reproduction. Therefore, subsequent ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project have the potential to significantly impact local BUOW populations. In addition, and as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), excluding and/or evicting BUOW from their burrows is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
To evaluate potential impacts to BUOW, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of the Project site, adding these additional measures to the DEIR, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project. Alternatively, these measures may be incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.2-6.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 5: BUOW Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist assess if suitable BUOW habitat features are present within or adjacent to the Project site (e.g., burrows). If suitable habitat features are present, CDFW recommends assessing presence/absence of BUOW by having a qualified biologist conduct surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s (CBOC) “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” (CBOC 1993) and CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012). Specifically, CBOC and CDFW’s Staff Report suggest three or more surveillance surveys conducted during daylight with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season (April 15 to July 15), when BUOW are most detectable.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 6: BUOW Avoidance
Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 states that a no-disturbance buffer range of 300 feet for an active BUOW nest will be implemented. CDFW recommends no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, CDFW’s Staff Report recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 7: BUOW Passive Relocation and Mitigation If BUOW are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to the Staff Report (CDFG 2012), exclusion is not a take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. However, if necessary, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1) as mitigation for the potentially significant impact of evicting BUOW. BUOW may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, CDFW recommends ongoing surveillance, at a rate that is sufficient to detect BUOW if they return.” COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-81 This comment is noted. For clarification, the Plan Area has been surveyed multiple times over the past 16 years. Field surveys and habitat evaluations were performed in 2004 by Biotic Resources Group: March (26th and 31st), April (14th and 30th), May (17th), June (17th), July (26th). In 2015, the Plan Area was again surveyed by De Novo Planning Group (September 11th) and, then again in 2016 (April 18th). During these field surveys there was no evidence of owl burrows (active or remnant), and there were no burrowing owls observed. It is noted that we recognize the mobility of this species, and their ability to establish new nesting sites in areas that remain undisturbed for a period of time. However, the current condition of most of the Plan Area is active cultivation, which equates to regular ground disturbance. Regular ground disturbance prevents this species from establishing a population. The areas that are not under active cultivation in the Plan Area do not have active or remnant burrowing owl nests. Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 as presented in the DEIR, provides adequate requirements to perform a preconstruction survey for nesting birds, including the burrowing owl. The DEIR does not require any revisions to address this topic. No further response is required.

Response F-6: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 5: Western Spadefoot
Issue: Western spadefoot inhabit grassland habitats, breed in seasonal wetlands, and seek refuge in upland habitat where they occupy burrows outside of the breeding season (Thomson et al. 2016). Western spadefoot has been documented in the Project vicinity and review of aerial imagery indicates that the Project may contain requisite habitat elements (CDFW 2020). The DEIR does not include any species-specific measures for western spadefoot.

Specific impact: Western spadefoot are known to occur in the area (CDFW 2020). Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for western spadefoot, potentially significant impacts associated with ground disturbance include; collapse of small mammal burrows, inadvertent entrapment, loss of upland refugia, water quality impacts to breeding sites, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from agricultural and urban development is the primary threat to western spadefoot (Thomson et al. 2016). The Project area is within the range of western spadefoot, contains suitable upland habitat, and possible breeding habitat. As a result, ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Project site have the potential to significantly impact local populations of this species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
To evaluate potential impacts to western spadefoot associated with the Project, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of the Project site, incorporating the following mitigation measures into the DEIR prepared for this Project, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 8: Western Spadefoot Surveys

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist if requisite habitat features for western spadefoot occurs on the Project site to evaluate potential impacts resulting from groundand vegetation-disturbance. If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for western spadefoot within the suitable habitat areas.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 9: Western Spadefoot Avoidance Within suitable habitat, avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and observance of a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer around burrows. If western spadefoot is observed on the Project site, CDFW recommends that Project activities in their immediate vicinity cease and individuals be allowed to leave the Project site on their own accord.

Alternatively, a qualified biologist with appropriate take authorization can move them out of harm’s way and to a suitable location.”
Western spadefoot is a California species of special concern, that occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying. The entire Plan Area was surveyed in 2004 by Biotic Resources Group:

March (26th and 31st), April (14th and 30th), May (17th), June (17th), July (26th). Additional field surveys were performed by De Novo Planning Group in 2015 September (11th) and in 2016 (April 18th)”. While these surveys did detect other special status species in the Plan Area, including amphibians, the western spadefoot was not observed. Optimal habitat for this species is not present for establishing populations. It is noted, however, that approximately 74 acres of riparian habitat would be created along Natividad Creek, and 30 acres along Gabilan Creek. The restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors, which would be a benefit to the possibility of western spadefoot establishing a population in the region in the future. No further response is required.

Response F-7: The commentor states:
“COMMENT 7: Special-Status plants
Issue: Special-status plant species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project area near the riparian habitats (CDFW 2020). The Project site contains habitat suitable to support numerous special-status plant species meeting the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Although the DEIR states that two field surveys were conducted, it does not include the protocol used during plant surveys or disclose if a reference site was used. In addition, it does not compare site conditions when the surveys were conducted (2004, 2015, and 2016) to present conditions. Therefore, CDFW cannot determine if surveys were adequate to detect special-status plant species, if the environmental baseline remains the same, or if mitigation measures listed in the DEIR are sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for specialstatus plants, potential significant impacts resulting from ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with Project construction include inability to reproduce and direct mortality.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-83 Evidence impact would be significant: Special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site are threatened by residential development, road maintenance, vehicles, grazing, trampling, and invasive, non-native plants (CNPS 2020).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Without additional information to evaluate potential impacts to special-status plant species associated with the Project, CDFW recommends conducting the following survey protocol to determine if special-status plants occur in the Project area, editing the DEIR to include the following additional measures if special-status plants are observed in the Project area, and including the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 10: Special-Status Plant Surveys Where suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends that the Project site be surveyed for special-status plants by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (CDFW 2018b). This protocol, which is intended to maximize detectability, includes the identification of reference populations to facilitate the likelihood of field investigations occurring during the appropriate floristic period. In the absence of protocol-level surveys being performed, additional surveys may be necessary.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 11: Special-Status Plant Avoidance CDFW recommends that special-status plant species be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no-disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special-status plant species. If buffers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine appropriate minimization and mitigation measures for impacts to special-status plant species.

Recommended New Mitigation Measure 12: State-listed Plant Take Authorization If a plant species listed pursuant to CESA is identified during botanical surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to any ground-disturbing activities may be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b).

The commentor suggests that the project site has suitable habitat for species meeting the definition of endangered under CEQA, but they do not identify a specific species that they are referring to in their statement. Additionally, the commentor incorrectly states that there were only two surveys.

As noted on page 3.2-53 of the DEIR, “Field surveys and habitat evaluations were performed in 2004 by Biotic Resources Group: March (26th and 31st), April (14th and 30th), May (17th), June (17th), July (26th). Additional field surveys were performed by De Novo Planning Group in 2015 September (11th) and in 2016 (April 18th)”.

The commenter goes on to state that the protocol used during plant surveys is not identified and it is not disclosed if a reference site was used. Pages 3.2-1 and 3.2-2, however, present a description of the survey methods, which indicates that field investigations were performed on foot using

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan transects in the study area during the floristic period for species in the region. To clarify, transects were spaced 10-feet, as is common practice and is necessary to provide optimal visibility for special status species in the region. Areas that were actively cultivated were void of non-agricultural plants and potential for special status species was not existent. The most intensively surveyed areas were in the more natural habitat along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, because these areas displayed habitat characteristics that were less disturbed and most likely to allow for the establishment of special status plants.

The 2004 survey identified Congdon’s tarplant just east of the Central Area Specific Plan; however, this species was not observed in the Central Area Specific Plan during the 2004 surveys. The surveys covered the floristic period and meet the methods for the CDFW plant survey protocol. There were no other special status plants observed in the 2004 surveys. The 2015 and 2016 surveys were also done on foot using 10-foot transects in the areas most likely to have special status plants due to less disturbance and more limited transects in monocultural fields that were actively cultivated. The intent of these surveys was to provide a spring and late summer survey as a supplement to the previous surveys and to search again for Congdon’s tarplant in the Plan Area given its known proximity. No special status species were observed. It is also noted that the areas with the highest potential for special status species are planned for restoration and habitat creation, and the highly disturbed agricultural fields are where development is focused.

As described on page 3.2-53 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not, directly or indirectly, generate a significant impact on special-status plant species. The Draft EIR identified a less than significant impact on special-status plant species. Therefore, despite the CDFW’s recommendations for mitigation for special-status plants, the City believes the analysis regarding special-status plant species to be adequate. No further response is warranted.

Response F-8: The commentor states, in part, that:
“CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)).

Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://wvwv.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/SubmittingData. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected].

The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-andAnimals.” This comment is noted. The City has provided the CEQA materials to the CDFW for its use in any database it deems appropriate. The CEQA materials were also provided to the State Clearinghouse, which has included the document within the CEQAnet database. The City understands that the field surveys performed by Bryan Mori of Biological Resources Consulting and Biotic Resources Group have been included in the CNDDB by way of the CNDDB field survey form available at that time.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-85 The commentor then states that an assessment of filing fees is necessary if it is determined that the Protect has the potential to impact biological resources. The commentor also provides concluding remarks, stating that the CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Salinas in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

This comment is noted and no further action is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 9 G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-87 G-4
(Continued)
G-5
G-6

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter G: Kate Roberts, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Response G-1: This comment provides an introductory statement summarizing the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) history and mission. No response is warranted.

Response G-2: This comment provides a summary description of the proposed project. No response is warranted.

Response G-3: The commentor states:
“MBEP supports a mix of affordable housing levels that will enable our workforce to live closer to jobs, and thereby reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018, MBEP partnered with Envision Housing to publish a Housing Policy White Paper, outlining nine specific policies that local governments can implement in the short term to increase the supply of more affordable homes. MBEP worked with the City of Salinas and other community stakeholders to update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and most recently worked with the City to provide input and community engagement regarding the adoption of the West Area Specific Plan in December 2019. We applaud the City for the progress it has made in adopting some of our recommendations, such as the waiver and deferral of impact fees for housing developments and reducing commercial requirements.

However, there remains much work to be done as the City is significantly behind in meeting it’s Regional Housing Needs goals of 2,093 homes with at least 847 needed to meet low and very low incomes. To date the City has only permitted a fraction of the homes needed (193 low and very low income units according to state reports); the City must take extraordinary measures to meet the existing housing needs of the community.” This comment is noted. The MBEP identifies that the City has only permitted a fraction of the homes needed to meet its Regional Housing Needs goals. This comment provides context for the following comments. No further response is warranted.

Response G-4: The commentor states:
“Given many of the similarities with the West Area Specific Plan which is also part of the City’s Future Growth Area, we offer the following recommendations: The adoption of an Enhanced Density Bonus Ordinance would provide additional concessions to market-rate developments in exchange for the inclusion of additional deed-restricted housing units. The City’s Density Bonus could be strengthened up to 50%. More certainty for long-term ADU policies, such as the City’s temporary five-year impact fee holiday, should be codified as a condition of the Plan’s development agreement and adoption. Additional opportunities to strengthen the plan include reducing parking requirements and zoning for higher housing densities to yield maximum land use and benefit. Finally, as part of its Covid-19 Housing Response Framework, MBEP has identified the need for concerted community engagement efforts during both the housing planning process and local government hearings. The use of COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-89 virtual outreach platforms, allowing community members to engage meaningfully in realtime, have already been adopted by other jurisdictions in our region. Given the magnitude of the Central Area Specific Plan, every effort should be made to include the voices of community members.”
The City appreciates the recommendations relating to increasing the amount of affordable housing within Salinas. As a CEQA matter, the need for more residential units affordable to low and very-low income households is generally a social and economic, rather than an environmental issue. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1521, fn. 13 [“project-specific demands for additional downtown housing implicate social and economic, not environmental, concerns and, thus, are outside the CEQA purview”].) Nevertheless, these recommendations will be passed onto the City Council for consideration.

Response G-5: The commentor states:
“The housing crisis facing Salinas has only been compounded by the Covid-19 Pandemic. The most vulnerable members of our community, such as low-income households and farmworker families, face the lion share of this hardship. This project has the potential to ameliorate the local housing shortage and implement community-driven housing policies.

Every possible step should be taken to strengthen the Project’s density in order to maximize the conversion of prime agricultural land. We encourage the City to consider the adoption of such policies to facilitate the creation of affordable housing, mitigate unaffordability and optimize housing outcomes resulting from the Central Area Specific Plan’s adoption. We also encourage the City to ensure that increased housing density goals outlined in the Plan are fulfilled by developers such as maximizing mixed use opportunities and ADU development.” This comment is noted. These recommendations will be passed onto the City Council for consideration. No further response is warranted.

Response G-6: The commentor states:
“In summary, MBEP strongly encourages:

1. Implementation of an enhanced density bonus policy

2. Conversion of commercial space where feasible to maximize housing as part of mixed-use site

3. Incentives for ADU development (fee waivers and clear design standards to streamline permitting)

4. Increased community engagement efforts both around the planning process and forthcoming local government hearings.

The need for concrete housing solutions is greater than ever and the whole of the Salinas Community must be reflected in the City’s housing planning. The decisions codified in the Central Area Specific Plan have the potential to maximize density, affordability and access to opportunity for community members, present and future.”

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan This comment is noted. These recommendations will be passed onto the City Council for consideration. No further response is warranted.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-91 H-1
H-2
H-3

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan H-3
(continued)
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-93 Response to Letter H: Chris Bjornstad, Caltrans
Response H-1: This comment serves as an introductory statement. No further response is warranted.

Response H-2: The commentor states that Caltrans is in support of smart growth principles, and that such principles are consistent with Caltrans’ mission, vision, and goals. No further response is warranted.

Response H-3: The commentor states the proposed project, by following the principles of New Urbanism and TND, will help meet SB 743 goals of reducing VMT and lowering GHGs. No further response is warranted.

Response H-4: The commentor states:
“In specific response to the LOS study provided, it is common for trip generation rates to account for pedestrian and bicycle activity and therefore should not be an additional reduction in the findings. The AM and PM reductions of 21% and 24% provided seem to be inconsistent with the typical 5-10% state of practice. Please provide additional justification as to the determination of the trip reductions using the Trip Generation Handbook methodology to show the internal capture rate.”
The comment questions the EIR’s trip generation assumptions including “AM and PM reductions of 21% and 24%” relating to “pedestrian and bicycle activity”. It appears the comment has summed the total reductions relating to both internal trips and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips.

Most of these trips are associated with the project’s internal trip making characteristics. These trips are associated with the mixed-use nature of the project which includes schools, residential, office, supermarkets, retail, civic and other miscellaneous uses. The reductions account for internal vehicle trips between the uses which do not leave the site and are not assigned to the roadway network external to the project. To accurately account for this behavior, the study makes use of the Mainstreet/MXD tool.

Current accepted methodologies, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation methodology, are primarily based on data collected at suburban, single-use, freestanding sites. These defining characteristics limit their applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects, such as the proposed project. The land use mix, design features, and setting of the proposed project would include characteristics that influence travel behavior differently from typical single-use suburban developments. Thus, traditional data and methodologies, such as ITE, may not accurately estimate project vehicle trip generation.

In response to the limitations in the ITE methodology, and to provide a straightforward and empirically validated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a national study of the trip generation characteristics of multi-use sites. Travel survey data was gathered from 239 mixed-use developments (MXDs) in six major metropolitan regions, and correlated with the characteristics of the sites and their surroundings. The findings indicated that the amount of external traffic generated

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-94 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan is affected by a wide variety of factors, including the mix of employment and residents, the overall size and density of the development, the internal connectivity for walking or driving among land uses, the availability of transit service, and the surrounding trip destinations within the immediate area outside a given project site.

These characteristics were related statistically to trip behavior observed at the study development sites using statistical techniques. These statistical relationships produced equations, known as the EPA MXD model, that allow predicting external vehicle trip reduction as a function of the MXD characteristics. Applying the external vehicle trip reduction percentage to “raw trips”, as provided by ITE, produces an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of the site.

The EPA has approved the MXD model has been approved for use2. It has also been peer-reviewed in the ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development3, peer-reviewed in a 2012 TRB paper evaluating various smart growth trip generation methodologies4, recommended by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for use on mixed-use smart growth developments5, promoted in an American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service (PAS)6 which recommended it for evaluating traffic generation of mixed-use and other forms of smart growth, including in-fill and transit oriented development. It has also been used successfully in numerous certified EIRs in California. No further response is warranted.

Response H-5: The commentor states:
“The traffic study assumes only 2% of traffic will use the freeway, with the remainder using local roads. Because of the makeup of the project with shopping/retail accounting for 35% of total project infrastructure, traffic will at the very least access the interchanges of US 101 at Boronda Road, Laurel Drive, and to some extent the ramps at Sala Road. Shopping related development carries a large amount of heavy vehicle delivery traffic which would on its own seem to put additional demand on the system. Caltrans concern for the potential of increased conflicts are mostly with the interchanges and therefore a closer look at these locations are merited.”
This comment is noted. The City stands by its conclusions. The transportation analysis conducted for the project incorporates the guidelines and standards of the City of Salinas. Project characteristics, 2 Trip Generation Tool for Mixed-Use Developments (2012). www.epa.gov/dced/mxd_tripgeneration.html 3 ”Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments—Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(3), 248–261. 4 Shafizadeh, Kevan et al. “Evaluation of the Operation and Accuracy of Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies for Use in California”. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
5 SANDAG Smart Growth Trip Generation and Parking Study. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=378&fuseaction=projects.detail 6 Walters, Jerry et al. “Getting Trip Generation Right – Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development”.

American Planning Association. May 2013.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-95 including the shopping/retail associated the proposed project, were incorporated into the traffic modeling conducted by the traffic engineers (i.e., Fehr & Peers). Assumptions, including the percentage of traffic that would use the freeway and the proportion of heavy vehicles as a proportion of the overall vehicle fleet, were also determined based on project characteristics, consistent with guidance provided from the City of Salinas and Caltrans. Moreover, key intersections, including those at US 101, Boronda Road, and Laurel Drive were analyzed as part of the project traffic study.

The transportation study utilizes a standard assumption of two percent heavy vehicles on non-truck routes within the City and five percent heavy vehicles on designated truck routes. These assumptions are consistent with recent measurements of heavy vehicles within the City. It should also be noted that the traffic study focuses on conditions during the AM and PM peak hours of travel.

These periods tend to be those times wherein automobile commute traffic is highest and truck traffic is lowest (both as a percentage of overall travel and as a whole as to not be delayed by peak commute conditions). See Section 3.10: Traffic and Circulation of the Draft EIR for further detail. No further response is warranted.

Response H-6: The commentor states:
“Specifically for Boronda Road, given the proximity of CASP to this interchange it would seem reasonable that a significant impact could be at this location particularly with the large amount of retail/big box stores on the west side of the freeway (e.g, Costco).” While a considerable amount of project related traffic was assigned to the Boronda Road/US 101 interchange within the traffic modeling developed for the proposed project, substantial adverse impacts were not identified by the traffic engineers at either the Boronda Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps or Boronda Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps intersections. Both ramp terminal intersections were evaluated within the transportation study in accordance with City of Salinas and Caltrans standards. The intersections were identified as operating at levels of service A or B in the weekday morning and evening peak hours of travel within the Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios.

Worse levels of service were identified at the adjacent Boronda Road/Main Street intersection, which may serve to meter traffic to and from the ramp terminal intersections.

It should also be noted that project traffic will have access to numerous interchanges on US 101 to execute regional trips. Given prevailing traffic levels on Boronda Road, the Sala Road interchange will likely be the shortest path of travel for freeway traffic with origins and destinations to the north.

Freeway traffic to and from the south will have a number of route choices which may be more attractive than Boronda Road. No further response is warranted.

Response H-7: The commentor states:
“We have appreciated working with the City in the past to develop an improvement plan for the interchanges along US 101 and look forward to continuing that work on finding the right set of enhancements to meet the demand of increased development while reducing potential conflict points.”

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-96 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The City looks forward to working with Caltrans to discuss this issue further. No further response is warranted.

Response H-8: This comment serves as a concluding statement. No further response is warranted.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-97 I-1

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-98 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-1
(continued)
I-2
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-99 I-2
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-100 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-3
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-101 I-4
I-3
(Continued)
I-5

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-102 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-5 (Continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-103 I-5
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-104 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-5
(Continued)
I-6
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-105 I-6
(Continued)
I-7
I-8
I-9

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-106 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-9
(Continued)
I-10
I-11
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-107 I-11
(Continued)
I-12
I-13
I-14

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-108 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan I-15
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-109 Response to Letter I: Devon B. Lincoln, Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Alisal Union School District
Response I-1: The commentor provides an introductory statement and provides a summary of the commentor’s concerns with the Draft EIR. Discussion of each of the issues summarized in this portion of the comment letter are provided in the responses, below.

Response I-2: The commentor states:
”1. District Communications with City and Developers
As envisioned by its developers, the 760-acre Specific Plan would include up to 3,911 residential units (both single family and multi-family residential units. By the City's calculation, the Project would generate up to 2,752 new elementary age students. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-25; CASP, p. 141) The Specific Plan includes three school sites, totaling approximately 48 acres: one 12-acre elementary school site owned by AUSD; one 18-acre middle school site owned by the Salinas Union High School District ("SUHSD") and one 18-acre site currently located within the Santa Rita Union School District ("SRUSD") that was originally designated by the developers for an middle/elementary school. (Draft EIR, pp. 2.0-15-2.0-16.) As noted in the Draft EIR, on April 28, 2020, the three districts submitted a petition for a territory transfer (i.e., a boundary adjustment) to the County Committee for School District Organization, which, if approved, would result in the transfer of that portion of SRUSD within the Specific Plan to AUSD, meaning that the 18-acre school site would no longer be within the territory served by SRUSD, and AUSD would instead potentially acquire and build facilities on that site (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-16). Although not acknowledged by the Draft EIR but as further discussed below, the proposed territory transfer has been planned, with the City's knowledge, for at least two years.

The Specific Plan states that the Project developers "have worked with and continue to work with, all three School Districts to identify each District's needs in terms of the appropriate size and location of the elementary and middle school sites." (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-16.) That claim considerably overstates the communications between the parties that have occurred concerning the Specific Plan. In reality, the District has had few opportunities to discuss the proposed Project with the City and the developers and has been given only limited information regarding the potential impact of the Project on the District. More to the point, an August 21, 2019, meeting between City Planning staff and District representatives has been the only meeting concerning the Project that has occurred over the past two years.

Recent communications from the Project developers have centered on requests that the District provide written assurances that two elementary school sites within the Specific Plan area would be sufficient to meet the District's needs. The Draft EIR accuses the District of "silence relative to raising any issues or concerns about the location or number of School facilities within the Plan Area" and suggests that until receipt of a May 29, 2020, letter from

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-110 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan District Superintendent Jim Koenig to Hugh Walker of Stone Bridge Homes, Inc., the City and the developers had been completely unaware of the potential need for a third school site to serve the numbers of elementary-age students that the Project will generate. (Draft EIR, pp.

2.0-17-2.0-18.) This is inaccurate.

In fact, on October 12, 2018, Mr. Koenig sent a letter to Senior Planner Jill Miller stating that, based on the District's most recent student generation rates ("SGRs"), the number of residential units that the developers were projecting would be constructed in the Specific Plan area, and a maximum student population figure of 850 students per school, the District "will require three new elementary schools in its portion of the Central Area in order to accommodate the students to be generated by the new residences in the development." Thus, the City and the developers have been aware that the District would likely need a third school site in the Specific Plan area for almost two years. The October 12, 2018 letter also points out that the territory transfer from SRUSD to AUSD is underway, and that the District has not factored in students coming from the SRUSD territory in making its determination that 3 school sites will be needed.

In his May 29, 2020, letter to Mr. Walker, Mr. Koenig made clear that the District was currently unwilling to relinquish its rights to a third school site within the Specific Plan and that until the Draft EIR was released, the District's Board of Trustees would not be able to properly evaluate the Specific Plan and the potential need for additional schools, staffing, and facilities resulting from build-out of the Project. Mr. Koenig's letter stated, in part:
“As I am sure you will understand, I cannot unilaterally relinquish a school site without consulting with the District's Board of Trustees. Further, on the advice of legal counsel, my recommendation to my Board would be to postpone making any decision regarding a third school site until the District and its legal counsel have had an opportunity to thoroughly review the draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the CASP. Your April 16, 2020, email states: "The City is less than 4 weeks from sending out [the CASP Draft EIR] for 45 day public review." Following its review of the Draft EIR, the District will provide its comments to the City concerning the project-including the need for a third school site-during the specified 45-day review public review period.””
This comment is noted. This comment focuses on the school district communications with the City and developers. It is worth noting that the Draft EIR accounts for the potential district boundary change identified by this comment in Section 3.9: Public Services of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the text and tables provided on pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-26 provide an analysis of the potential for adverse physical impacts from the construction of new schools associated with the project, for both the scenario where no boundary change were to occur, as well as the scenario were a boundary change to occur. Additionally, Table 3.9-12 on page 3.9-25 of the Draft EIR identifies the student generation that is anticipated to occur were the district boundary change to go forward.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-111 Because the demand for new schools will gradually increase over the time period in which buildout of the Specific Plan occurs, the City is committed to consulting with the school district, as may be applicable as part of the City’s process for considering proposed tentative subdivision maps within the Specific Plan area. Such consultations will allow the City to keep the school districts apprised of the project proponents’ progress in seeking and obtaining entitlements for incremental amounts of new development within the Specific Plan area, thereby helping the districts to keep pace with new residential development as it occurs. Over time, as the Plan Area gradually builds out, the districts might reassess their needs or consider new or different sites for their proposed facilities, depending on factors such as the number of potential students living within newly developed areas and the number of additional students projected to live within the Plan Area at buildout. These tentative map consultations, then, will provide a kind of development phasing that will allow the districts to proactively plan for obtaining the sites and construction funds they will need to allow for the timely construction of new schools as the demands for them materialize over time. No further response is warranted.

Response I-3: The commentor states:
“2. Suitability of Site for Use as Elementary School
The Districts' plans for the pending territory transfer were also discussed during the August 21, 2019, meeting between the District and City Planning staff. Nonetheless, the Project developers have not addressed potential modifications to the Project that would likely be necessary if the site originally designated for an SRUSD middle/elementary school were redesignated as an AUSD elementary school site.

As an initial concern, the northern half of the 18-acre proposed site is not currently within the CASP, as the landowners have expressly exempted that parcel from the City's annexation process. Until that annexation process is complete, it is not appropriate for the Draft EIR to identify the entire 18-acre parcel as a potential school site. As one example, the Specific Plan includes a road and a segment of green way/pedestrian path running through the middle of the 18- acre school site. (CASP, Figs. 5-3, 5-5.) Dividing the school site with a public road and pathway may have been acceptable during earlier phases of the Specific Plan planning process when the site was originally designated as a potential middle/elementary school site within the SRUSD. However, AUSD serves elementary students in grades K through 6. A road and public pedestrian path running through the middle of an elementary school campus would raise serious safety concerns and limit the land available for the construction of school facilities. Given those concerns, the inclusion of a road and greenway/pedestrian path that would bisect the site is unacceptable to the District.

Before the District can acquire property for a new school site, it must, among other things, comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and obtain the approval of the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the suitability of the property for a school site. These approvals are mandatory prior to the District moving forward with planning for a new school site.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-112 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The CDE has not evaluated the suitability of the 18-acre site for use as an elementary school site, but a CDE consultant who reviewed the Draft EIR has raised concerns about the location of the site in a floodplain and the need for a hydrology study to identify the potential for flooding. The CDE consultant noted that the road running through the campus is likely to collect runoff from adjacent houses and then run downslope through the site, and that overflow from Gabilan Creek will also follow that same path. Of particular concern, the CDE consultant indicated that a gas pipeline study would almost certainly be required for approval of the property for use as a school site.

The Project also contemplates the installation of a large underground water main below the road and greenway/pedestrian path running though the school site. (CASP, Fig. 6-3.) Inspections and repairs to pipes and water main components would be highly disruptive to elementary school operations.

These and other concerns may render the proposed site unsuitable for use as an elementary school. Although the developers had close to two years' advance notice of the pending territory transfer, the Draft EIR does not identify or address any modifications to the Project that would be necessary if the westernmost school site is ultimately utilized for elementary students. Likewise, the Specific Plan has not set aside sufficient property to serve all of the elementary students who may eventually reside there.”
This comment is noted. The commentor asserts that the potential boundary changes between the respective school districts would be environmentally significant; however, the generalized footprint impacts of individual schools would not presumably differ simply because one school district rather than another would be operating them. Although it might be true, at least in theory, that one school district’s personnel might have design preferences that are somewhat different from those of another school district and its personnel, the City cannot be charged here with a duty to predict such differences, which would likely, in any event, not result in any differing levels of environmental impact.

The commentor is seeking a level of detail on a parcel-by-parcel basis that is simply not required for an EIR for a proposed Specific Plan, which would be a legislative enactment covering a very substantial area of land. The law is clear that, for such a project, an EIR may address impacts at relatively conceptual level of detail. The commenter fails to account for the CEQA principle that “[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15146.) “An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.” (Id., subd. (b).) “An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy.” (Id., subd. (a).)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-113 For example, the commentor identifies that a ‘road and public pedestrian path’ would run through the middle of an elementary school campus (were the district boundary change to occur). However, it is not clear how this would generate serious safety concerns beyond those that would occur if the site were to stay within the boundaries of the SRUSD, where the site would be developed as a middle/elementary school. City, state, and federal road and sidewalk public safety requirements would apply in both cases. Furthermore, it is not clear how such a pathway would limit the land available for the construction of school facilities, including in one case versus the other. Moreover, crucially, both scenarios were analyzed in Section 3.9: Public Services of the Draft EIR.

The commentor states that approvals from the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) would be required prior to the Alisal Union School District (AUSD) acquiring property for the new school site, were the boundary change to occur. The commentor identifies that, although the CDE has not yet evaluated the suitability of the site for use as an elementary school site, a CDE consultant has raised concerns about the location of the site in a floodplain and the need for a hydrology study, and that a gas pipeline study would almost certainly be needed for approval of the property for use as a school site. In addition, the commentor states that the installation of a large underground water main below the road running through the school site would require inspections and repairs to pipes and water main components that would be highly disruptive to school operations.

While these claims may or may not be true, the Draft EIR was not required to undertake a sitespecific analysis for the school sites. In preparing the Specific Plan, the City attempted to identify viable school sites, but was aware that, under CEQA and the Education Code, school districts have the ultimate say over school sites, and, in their capacity as lead agencies for such site-specific projects, they are responsible for addressing site specific issues under criteria found in the Education Code and CEQA (e.g., in Public Resources Code section 21151.8). Indeed, CEQA contemplates that school districts, as lead agencies, will conduct environmental review for proposed schools with consultation requirements and an attention to particular details not required for typical environmental documents, and particularly those addressing larger areas of land, such as EIRs for specific plans. The City was under no such obligations in preparing the EIR for the Central Area Specific Plan.
“CEQA establishes a special requirement for certain school projects … to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances will be carefully examined and disclosed in a negative declaration or EIR, and that the lead agency will consult with other agencies in this regard.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15186, subd. (a).) For example, on the subject of inter-agency consultation, Public Resources Code section 21151.8, subdivision (a)(2), requires school district lead agencies, when preparing negative declarations or EIRs for proposals to purchase or construct new elementary or secondary schools, to consult with both “the administering agency [7] in which the proposed school site is located” and “any air pollution control district or air quality 7 An “administering agency” is the local agency responsible for administering and enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs “hazardous materials release response plans and inventory.” (Ed.

Code, § 17213, subd. (d)(6); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25501, subd. (a), 25502; CEQA Guidelines, § 15186, subd. (e)(2).)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-114 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan management district having jurisdiction in the area.” (See also Ed. Code, § 17213, subd. (b).) The purpose of such consultation is to identify “permitted and unpermitted facilities” within one-fourth of a mile of the proposed school site which might be reasonably anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, freeways and busy traffic corridors, large agricultural operations, and rail yards. The lead agency’s notification “shall include a list of the locations for which information is sought.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8, subd. (a)(2); see also CEQA Guidelines,§ 15186, subd. (c).)
Any school district lead agency preparing an EIR for a proposal to purchase a school site or construct a new school must also ensure that the EIR will ultimately be able to determine whether the site is any of the following: (1) “the site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, and if so, whether the wastes have been removed”; (2) a “hazardous substance release site” identified in a list of sites for which “removal or remedial action” is planned, compiled by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25300 et seq. and 25356; (3) “[a] site which contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which that is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood, or other nearby schools.”; or (4) “a site that is within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or other busy traffic corridor.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8, subd. (a)(1); see also Ed. Code, § 17213, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15186, subd. (c)(1).) Finally, before certifying an EIR for school site acquisition or construction, the governing board of the affected school district must make one of the following permissible findings related to the district’s statutory consultation duties:
• “Consultation identified no [permitted and nonpermitted facilities within the consulted air district’s authority, including, but not limited to, freeways and busy traffic corridors, large agricultural operations, and railyards, within one-fourth of a mile of the proposed schoolsite, that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or waste] or other significant pollution sources. . . .” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8, subd. (a)(3)(A).) • “The facilities or other pollution sources. . . exist but one of the following conditions applies:”
(i) “The health risks from the facilities or other pollution sources do not and will not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school;”
(ii) An existing order issued by an agency with jurisdiction over the facilities requires corrective measures that, before the school is occupied, will “result in the mitigation of all chronic or accidental hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school.” If the governing board makes this finding, COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-115 it must also make a subsequent finding, prior to occupancy, that the emissions have in fact been mitigated to those levels.
(iii) Where a school site is located within 500 feet from the edge of the closesttraffic lane of a freeway or other busy traffic corridor, the school district determines that the air quality at the proposed site is such that neither short-term nor long-term exposure poses significant health risks to pupils. (See Ed. Code, § 17213, subd. (c)(2).) This determination must be supported by a health risk assessment prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 44360, subd.(b)(2).) The analysis must be based upon “appropriate air dispersion modeling.” The determination may be made only after the school district considers any potential mitigation measures.[
8 ]
• Such facilities or other pollution sources exist, but the conditions in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii), above, cannot be met, and the school district is unable to locate an alternative site that is suitable due to a severe shortage of sites that avoid the hazards listed in Education Code section 17213, subdivision (a). If the governing board of the school district makes this finding, it must adopt a statement of overriding conditions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8, subd. (a)(3)(C); Ed. Code, § 17213, subd. (c)(2)(D).)
The tenor of the commenter’s statements about the alleged inadequacies of the City’s EIR almost suggest that the commenter believes that the City was somehow required to generate this kind of information as part of the City’s EIR for the Central Area Specific Plan. But the law as described above applies only to school districts acting as lead agencies for negative declarations and EIRs for proposed school site purchases or the proposed construction of new schools. CEQA does not place such burdens on cities preparing EIRs for specific plans.

Importantly, nothing in the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.) requires the City even to identify school sites within a specific plan. The mandatory contents for specific plans are set forth in Government Code section 65451, subdivision (a), which provides only as follows:
(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
8 Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8, subd. (a)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 17213, subd. (c)(2); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15186, subd. (c)(3).

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-116 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

Notably absent from subdivision (a)(2) is any mention of school sites. The same is true of Government Code section 65302, subdivision (a), which identifies the mandatory contents for a land use element within a general plan. These omissions may reflect the fact that school district boards, through two-thirds votes, can override local zoning and put schools virtually wherever they want them. Government Code section 53094, subdivision (a), provides that school districts need not comply with a city or county zoning ordinance “unless the zoning ordinance makes provision for the location of public schools and unless the city or county has adopted a general plan.” Subdivision (b) of that statute further provides that, “[n]otwithstanding subdivision (a), the governing board of a school district, … by a vote of two- thirds of its members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district.” There are qualifications on this power, however. First, the district must comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65352.2 and Public Resources Code section 21151.2. The former statute (§ 65352.2) requires a school district to notify a city or county planning commission or other city or county body of the district’s plan to expand an existing school or to build a new school. This notification allows the city or county body to request a meeting in order to facilitate coordination between the district and the local planning body. The latter statute (§ 21151.2), which is a part of CEQA, requires a school district to notify a city or county planning commission of the district’s interest in acquiring a new site for a new school or an addition to an existing school, so as to solicit recommendations from the planning commission. A second limitation on school district boards’ power to overriding zoning is that this power does not apply to “nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings.” This last limitation is not relevant here, however, as we are concerned with new schools, not new “nonclassroom facilities.”
The commentor is essentially demanding project-specific analysis for schools that have not yet been designed, based on planning criteria unique to schools from the Education Code. As explained above, the City does not have that obligation in an EIR for a long-term Specific Plan. The school district itself must comply with CEQA and Education Code requirements when the time comes to propose and build a school.

Response I-4: The commentor states:
“3. Potential Increases in Enrollment
The Specific Plan includes up to 3,911 single family and multi-family residential units which the City has calculated would generate approximately 2,752 new elementary-age students COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-117 to be served by the District; however, these figures are inaccurate, as they do not utilize the current District SGRs, as set out in the July 2, 2020, School Facilities Needs Analysis ("2020 SFNA").

The District currently operates twelve K-6 elementary schools and is the authorizer of one charter school. As noted in the District's 2020 SFNA, by the 2024-2025 school year, the District will need to plan for serving 573 students projected to be generated by the construction of future residential units within the City over the next five years. (2020 SFNA, Exhibit K.) This figure does not include the significant number of students that will be generated by the CASP. (2020 SFNA, p.11.)
Land use assumptions set out in the Transportation and Circulation section of the Draft EIR include "two elementary schools with 600 students enrolled in each and one middle school with 803 students enrolled." (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-28.) Assuming that each elementary school will house up to 600 students-a maximum student population that is educationally far more reasonable than the 850 students per campus that fill most of the District's other elementary sites, which are very crowded-the District is likely to need at least three sites within the Specific Plan area.

The District's estimate that it would need at least three new school sites was set out in Mr.

Koenig's October 12, 2018, letter to Senior Planner Jill Miller, which also described the need for additional staffing and new facilities (such as portable classrooms, playing fields, and restroom facilities) at its existing schools. However, except for identifying the 18-acre parcel as a potential school site (in the event the boundary adjustment is approved), the developers have not identified any other potential elementary school sites or given any consideration to the need for the additional facilities and staffing to serve students generated by the Project.

This does not comply with the City's General Plan Policy LU-9.1, which requires the developers to "work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students." (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-15.) These capacity concerns should be more fully analyzed and addressed in the Draft EIR.”
The commentor states that the estimates for student generation contained in the Draft EIR are inaccurate, as they did not utilize the current school district SGRs, as set out in the July 2, 2020 School Facilities Needs Analysis (2020 SFNA). However, the 2020 SNFA was not released until after the Draft EIR was released for public review, on June 27, 2020. Nevertheless, based on this comment, the City has updated pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-26 the Draft EIR, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR, as provided at the end of this comment response.

The commentor then provides information regarding the school district’s planning for serving the students generated by the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to the students the school district is already planning to serve. The commentor faults the developers for not having identified any other potential elementary school sites or given any consideration to the need for the additional facilities and staffing to serve students generated by the Project. The commentor states that this is

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-118 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan inconsistent with the City's General Plan Policy LU-9.1, which requires the developers to "work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students." (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-15.). The commentor concludes the comment by stating that such capacity concerns should be more fully analyzed and addressed in the Draft EIR.

However, the Draft EIR was not required to undertake a site-specific analysis for the school sites. As described under Response I-3 (above), in preparing the Specific Plan, the City attempted to identify viable school sites, but was aware that, under CEQA and the Education Code, school districts have the ultimate say over school sites, and, in their capacity as lead agencies for such site-specific projects, they are responsible for addressing site specific issues under criteria found in the Education Code and CEQA (e.g., in Public Resources Code section 21151.8, described in detail above). (See also Response 1-3 above regarding the following: the facts that the Planning and Zoning Law does not require either specific plans or general plans to identify school sites, but does require consultation between school districts and cities and counties; and the fact that, under Government Code section Government Code section 53094, a school district board, by a two-thirds vote, may override zoning and thereby place schools essentially wherever the board wants to put them.) Moreover, the commentor argues that the City has violated General Plan policy LU- 9.1, which reads as follows: “Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.” This policy creates an ongoing obligation, which the City continues to satisfy. The proposed project contains proposed school sites that, based on the information that the City had at the time it released the document, the City thought were likely to be viable school sites. The fact that the school districts might disagree, or ask for refinements to the Specific Plan, does not mean that the City is not satisfying its obligation to identify lands that the City considers to be potentially suitable for schools. This policy does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, the school districts themselves, working under school district-specific CEQA requirements and Department of Education criteria, must decide where they want to build new schools.

Based on the first part of this comment, pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-26 of the Draft EIR have been updated as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-119 TABLE 3.9-10: STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR THE SUHSD, AUSD, AND SRUSD SOURCES: SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2018 SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION REPORTSCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 2020 ; SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, MARCH 6, 2018. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, JULY 202, 20182020.

NOTES: AUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS; SRUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS; SUHSD ONLY CONTAINS MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS.

DWELLING UNIT TYPE EDUCATION LEVEL GENERATION FACTORS

ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (AUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.67550.4180
Middle N/A
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD

GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC AB)
Elementary 0.73980.2857
Middle N/A
High N/A

SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (SRUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.3148
Middle 0.1955
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC A-B)
Elementary 0.5715
Middle 0.1892
High N/A

SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (SUHSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.1350.114
High 0.2080.137

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC A-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.0090.028
High 0.0410.011

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-120 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TABLE 3.9-11: PROJECTED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STUDENT GENERATION ESTIMATES (NO

BOUNDARY CHANGE)
SOURCE: 2018 SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION REPORTSCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 2020; SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, MARCH 6, 2018. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, JULY 20, 2018JULY 2, 2020. NOTES: * ASSUMES DEVELOPMENT OCCURS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITIES WOULD ALLOW. ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE REDUCED. ** ASSUMES THE HIGHEST VALUES WHEN COMPARING ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERATION RATES FOR EACH GRADE COHORT. ACTUAL ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES AND STUDENTS GENERATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON FUTURE ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES. ***TOTAL MAY NOT ADD UP TO DUE ROUNDING.

It should be noted that a district boundary change between the Santa Rita Union School District and the Alisal Union School District is currently underway and may be completed in 2020, although the City of Salinas has no control over when, or if, such a boundary change is to occur. If the boundary adjustment is finalized, no portion of the Specific Plan will be located within the boundaries of the SRUSD. Therefore, two separate tables are provided below to evaluate student enrollment/generation: the first (Table 3.9-11) reflects the student generation in the event the district boundary adjustment does not occur. The second (Table 3.9-12) reflects the student generation in the event the district boundary change does occur. It should be noted that the projections provided in Table 3.9-11 reflect the highest student generation factors of all three school districts for each grade cohort (as described in the tables notes under Table 3.9-11).

DWELLING

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

DWELLING
UNITS*

EDUCATION LEVEL

GENERATION
FACTORS**

POTENTIAL

STUDENTS
GENERATED***

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND
(NG A-B)
2,194
Elementary 0.67550.4180 1,482917
Middle 0.1955 429
High 0.208 456

MULTIFAMILY

NEIGHBORHOO

D GENERAL
(NG-C) AND

VILLAGE
CENTER (VC AB)
1,717
Elementary 0.73980.5715 1,270981
Middle 0.1892 325
High 0.041 70
Total 3,911 4,0333,178
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-121 TABLE 3.9-12: PROJECTED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STUDENT GENERATION ESTIMATES (WITH BOUNDARY

CHANGE)
SOURCE: 2018 School Facility Needs Analysis and Justification ReportSchool Facility Needs Analysis for the Salinas Union High School District May 2020, July 20, 2018July 2, 2020. NOTES: *ASSUMES DEVELOPMENT EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITIES. ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE REDUCED. ** ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GENERATE FACTORS ARE

PROVIDED BY THE ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHILE THE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL GENERATION FACTORS ARE PROVIDED BY THE

SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER THE WITH BOUNDARY CHANGE SCENARIO. ***TOTAL MAY NOT ADD UP TO DUE ROUNDING.

As shown in Table 3.9-11, assuming no school district boundary changes are expected to occur, the proposed project is expected to generate up to approximately 4,0333,178 additional students. This value is conservative, since this projection is based on the use of the highest student generation factors of all three school districts for each grade cohort (as described in the tables notes under Table

3.9-11). However, as shown in Table 3.9-12, if a boundary change were to occur between the Santa Rita Union School District and the Alisal Union School District (such that only the AUS and the SUHSD would serve the Specific Plan Area), the proposed project is projected to generate approximately 3,5912,025 students. In this second scenario, only two school districts (instead of three) would serve the Specific Plan Area; therefore, only student generation factors for the two school districts remaining to serve the Specific Plan Area (AUSD and SUHUSD) under this scenario were used.9 No further response is required.

Response I-5: The commentor states:
“4. Insufficient School Funding
A table of proposed funding sources for public schools set out in the Central Area Specific Plan document lists "School District Fees" (i.e. school impact or developer fees) and "TAMC State and Federal", which is broadly described as funding that may be available from regional, State and/or federal sources. (CASP, p. 191). 9 For the purposes of these projections, while under the ‘No Boundary Change’ scenario, student generation factors from the SRUSD (in addition to the other two school districts) were utilized, under the ‘With Boundary Change scenario’, the SRUSD school generation factors were not utilized.

DWELLING

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

DWELLING
UNITS*

EDUCATION LEVEL

GENERATION
FACTORS**

POTENTIAL

STUDENTS
GENERATED***
SINGLEFAMILY
(NE A-B) AND
(NG A-B)
2,194
Elementary 0.67550.4180 1,482917
Middle 0.1350.114 296250
High 0.2080.137 456301

MULTIFAMILY

NEIGHBORHOO

D GENERAL
(NG-C) AND

VILLAGE

CENTER (VC
A-B)
1,717
Elementary 0.73980.2857 1,270491
Middle 0.0090.028 1548
High 0.0410.011 7019
Total 3,911 3,5912,025

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-122 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The Draft EIR states that the payment of school impact fees is "full and complete facilities mitigation" for the impact of new development. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-26.) This is incorrect. In making that assertion, the Draft EIR relies on the language of Senate Bill ("SB") 50 which declares that the payment of the developer fees authorized by Education Code section 17620 constitutes "full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act on the provision of adequate school facilities." (Gov. Code § 65995(h).) (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-26.) California courts have since acknowledged that developer fees do not constitute full and complete mitigation for school-related impacts other than school overcrowding. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.) For purposes of considering the Draft EIR and the impact of the Specific Plan on schools, it is critical to understand that as of the date of this writing, funding at the State for school facilities is virtually nonexistent, and local funding sources are likewise hard to come by.

Contrary to the assertions made by the Draft EIR, regional and federal funds are rarely if ever a source of funding for school facilities construction in California. In fact, the current landscape of school facilities funding is governed largely by The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act (SB 50). Adopted in August 1998, SB 50 was an attempt to create a theoretical "three-legged stool" of school facilities financing, conceptualizing the funding of school facilities from three primary sources - State, local, and developer fees.

One typical source of school facilities financing (one leg of the stool) represents State bond fund grants, administered through the State Facilities Program (SFP). In order to receive State bond funds, school districts first must advance the funds necessary to obtain Division of State Architect (DSA) and California Department of Education (CDE) approvals. After expenditure of these funds, districts will apply for bond funding to the State Allocation Board (SAB), through the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). Districts must be able to "match" the amount of State funding from local sources in order to be eligible for State funding, and are generally eligible for 50% of acquisition/construction costs from the State.

Districts may be eligible for up to 100% if they are able to claim "hardship" status (if the districts are unable to raise sufficient local funds to match the State grant).

After submitting funding applications, and after the applications are received by the OPSC, district projects will then be added to the State's "workload list" where project applications are reviewed on a continuous basis, generally based on the timing of the applications received. If the applications are approved, then they are moved to the "Unfunded List," which includes approved applications for which no bond money has yet been apportioned. School districts often have to wait several years to receive state funding, and will only then receive funding sufficient to cover a portion of the district's project. However, if State bond funding is depleted (as is now the case after the exhaustion of construction funds under Proposition 51 and the failure of Proposition 13 on the March 2020 ballot), then school districts who submit applications will not be guaranteed to receive any funding, and will instead be placed on an "Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority" list. There is no guarantee that these projects will ever receive reimbursement.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-123 In all, the State facilities funding system is in a perpetual state of flux, and it is never certain if, or when, a school district will receive such funding for a given project. This is especially true at the present time, after State voters rejected Proposition 13 on March 3, 2020. That ballot measure would have authorize $8 billion in construction and modernization for K-12 school districts. Instead, school districts have no reasonable expectation of securing State funding for construction until voters can once again be persuaded to support school construction; given the uncertainty of the current economic picture, we cannot assume that will happen any time soon. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the District will secure State funding for construction of new schools in time for the families that will move into the homes proposed by the Specific Plan.

Theoretically, another third of school facilities financing should come from local funds, including local general obligation (GO) bond funds and property and parcel taxes. Since the passage of SB 50, the inadequacies of State and developer sourced funding have become more apparent, and more pressure has been placed on school districts to fund facilities from local sources, primarily through local GO bonds. However, districts are often unable to generate sufficient local funds due to bonding capacity limitations, lack of existing community voter approvals to subsidize schools for new development, and general lack of voter willingness to accept additional local property assessments. Even assuming the District had the bonding capacity to seek voter approval for local funds to assist with construction of new schools, it would face the uphill battle of convincing current homeowners to tax themselves for the purpose of building schools that will serve families in homes that have not yet been built- a tough sell, to say the least.

Finally, as noted, statutory school impact fees (also known as "developer fees") are anticipated to supply one third of school construction costs. The reality is that the amount of developer fees received by school districts often fall woefully short of the impacts caused by such development.

In the case of the Specific Plan, reliance on developer fees and unspecified "regional, State and or federal sources" to fund school facilities is unrealistic, as developer fees will likely cover only a portion of the costs for schools, facilities, staff, and services required in order to serve the new students that could be generated by the Project. The District estimates that, as of July 2019, the site acquisition and facility construction costs for an elementary school will total $51,177,376. (2020 SFNA, Exhibit E.) This estimate does not include interest costs associated with debt incurred to finance the construction of facilities.

In November 2016, District voters approved Measure M, which authorized the issuance of $70,000,000 in general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing or reimbursing the costs of construction, repair, modernization, acquisition, and equipping of existing school classrooms, facilities, and school sites within the District. (2020 SFNA, Exhibit L.) As of the date of this letter, any remaining bond proceeds are earmarked for completion of improvements to existing facilities. (Id.) Thus, no proceeds from Measure M are available to offset the impact of students generated from future residential units within the City, including the CASP. (Id.) The District has not formed any community facilities districts (CFDs)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-124 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan to date, and although it has pass-through agreements with the County of Monterey, it has not received any redevelopment revenue over the past year. Overall, the District has identified a total of $7,243,316 of potential State and local funding for school facilities, but as discussed above, there is no guarantee that State funding will be forthcoming and it is highly unlikely that the District will secure such funding in time for the families that will move into the homes proposed by the Specific Plan. (Id.) It must also be noted that developer fees would be collected incrementally during the anticipated 20-30 year build out of the Project.

Thus, the District will not have access to a "lump sum" amount of developer fees to fund needed new facilities.

The City and the developers may take the attitude that the dire state of funding for school facilities is "not our problem" or outside the concerns of a CEQA review. This attitude is unfortunate, given that quality schools are a crucial part of any community and a key selling point for new homes. However, this issue is also fundamental to the sufficiency of the Draft EIR. If the District cannot secure the funding to build a new school on the parcel it owns and to purchase and construct on such additional parcels as it may need to serve the projected growth from the Specific Plan, it will be forced to consider other means of serving the students who will reside there. This may include massive bussing and other transportation to existing District sites, as well as overcrowding of those sites. These are very real, nonspeculative potential environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan that have not been contemplated by the Draft EIR, and in that way it is not a sufficient analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Project.”
The commentor states that, if sufficient money for school construction does not materialize, then the school districts may have to add new facilities at existing schools or may have to change transportation or bussing patterns. However, such an analysis would be “speculative.” The City has no way of knowing how, over a 20-year period, how each individual school might deal with its inability to build a particular school within the Specific Plan Area. Importantly, the commenter has not offered any specific scenarios for the City to consider, despite being in a far better position than the City to predict how the school districts might react to funding shortfalls over the coming years.

CEQA does not require speculation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15145.) “[O]rdering CEQA review in the absence of a plan involving an identifiable impact would not be meaningful.” (Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643, 657.) No good “ purpose would be served by an [environmental impact report] that could only speculate on future environmental consequences.” (Id.)
The City emphasizes to the commentor that no land use plan (general plan or specific plan) is understood to guarantee that the planned uses will materialize. Rather, such plans set forth a vision of land use that might materialize if market conditions and public financing allow it to happen. The Draft EIR for the project is not deficient simply because neither the City nor the project developers can guarantee adequate school funding. The City is merely identifying locations where schools would complement other land uses. The footprint-related impacts of schools are generally no different than those of other uses. Nor are school residents any more or less susceptible to atmospheric environmental conditions than are other area residents. As explained in the response COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-125 to comment I-3, school districts must ultimately make their own siting decisions, and must conduct their own project-specific CEQA analysis in doing so.

Impacts associated with schools are analyzed in Section 3.9 Public Services. Page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR presents the City’s policy toward working with school districts to identify land needed for new schools, and to consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when considering new projects. The City’s policies are as follows:

Policy LU-9.1: Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.

Policy LU-9.2: Consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when acting on annexation applications to ensure that public services and facilities service standards identified in Table LU-4 are met.

The purpose for identifying sites for new schools is to ensure that there is adequate land set aside for the development of new school facilities within the Specific Plan Area. Ultimately, the Education Code and CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8) task the school districts with the responsibility for design and construction of their own schools, and for conducting their own project-specific CEQA analyses in doing so. While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school districts with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school districts through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees; instead, that responsibility lies with the school districts. Education Code (EC) section 17620 grants the school districts the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

It is important to consider the statutory requirements that apply to school facilities impacts in this discussion. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impacts caused by new development. Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-126 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan district cannot require fees beyond that allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

Moreover, in Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, the court said that, though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, biological resources, and the like. The City did that here, as the City considered school construction as part of full buildout of the project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development. Grading and site alteration are required for any kind of development.

This phased approach, which is discussed briefly in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR, provides that the Specific Plan area is owned by multiple landowners and the Specific Plan is intentionally designed to allow each landowner to develop their property independent of the development by other landowners. (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-25.) There is only minimal discussion of this phasing concept located elsewhere in the EIR. The few other references to this phasing concept merely suggest that development of the Specific Plan area (site improvements and construction) are "assumed" by the Draft EIR to take place over the course of approximately 20 years (2020 to 2040), and that such development is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed development. (Id.) The Draft EIR does not include an estimated schedule for development (or any other information regarding the sequencing or scheduling of development), nor does the Draft EIR impose any restrictions or limitations on the timing of development within the Specific Plan area.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-127 The Draft EIR's assumption that development within the Specific Plan area will generally proceed from the surrounding arterial and collector streets towards the center of the Specific Plan area is problematic. (Id.) The Draft EIR offers no evidence or other information suggesting why this assumption should be drawn. In fact, it seems equally likely that significant development of the Specific Plan Area will happen concurrently in different sections of the Plan area. With regard to public schools, the Draft EIR merely notes that school construction will be based on projections of the needs for schools as the Specific Plan area and surrounding area develop. Without further explanation, the Draft EIR goes on to state that "the middle school site is expected to be developed first." (Id.) This assumption is equally problematic, as it is just as likely that AUSD would need to construct one or more elementary schools within the Specific Plan area to accommodate students generated by concurrent construction in the western or central parts of the Project.

The City has acknowledged that there is a shortage of housing available in the Salinas area and that the need for additional housing is critical. Additionally, economic and market conditions are not selective, and when they are good for one developer, they are typically good for all developers. The bottom line is that to adequately review, analyze, and address all potential environmental impacts arising from the project, the Draft EIR must analyze the impacts to the environment resulting from significant concurrent development within the Specific Plan area.

Should the City disagree with this position, the Draft EIR should at least be revised to include a detailed discussion of how the unrestricted phasing approach to development of the Specific Plan Area (inclusive of nearly 760 acres, with an anticipated 3,911 residential units and up to 489,700 square feet of commercial space) actually corresponds to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made in the Draft EIR with respect to environmental impacts and mitigation. The Draft EIR lacks any information regarding the timing, scheduling, or sequencing of development, rendering it impossible for the Draft EIR to appropriately review and analyze environmental impacts. The Draft EIR is deficient in this regard.”
The commentor faults the City for not including any phasing analysis, and states that the Draft EIR mainly just looks at the environmental impacts of buildout. Yet the school district does not cite any authority for the alleged need to address phasing; nor does the commentor cite any authority indicating that addressing full project buildout is inappropriate. The commentor’s criticism is not grounded in CEQA. Looking at buildout is the normal approach taken in EIRs, and is consistent with CEQA case law. “‘[T]he the EIR must address the project and assumes the project will be built.’” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 430, quoting Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 206.) CEQA does not require analysis of individual phases of projects. Indeed, courts have rejected claims by petitioners that EIRs were inadequate for failing to address interim years short of buildout. (See City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 526, 532, 544 [EIR was sufficient where its traffic analysis addressed only “the beginning of the project (2014) and the completion (2030)”; court rejects the petitioner’s contention that the lead agency “was obligated to

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-128 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan calculate year-by-year, intersection-by-intersection, traffic impacts that would take into account all the various permutations derivable from the variables of project phasing and nearby residential construction”].) For market-driven projects such as specific plans, lead agencies have no way of identifying a specific “schedule” for development, as requested by the commentor. Therefore, the school district is incorrect in stating that “the Draft EIR must analyze the impacts to the environment resulting from significant concurrent development within the Specific Plan area” and that “[t]he Draft EIR is deficient in this regard.” No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-7: The commentor states:
“6. Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District
The Central Area Specific Plan proposes the formation of a landscape and lighting maintenance district ("LLMD") in order to fund certain recurring City costs from the Project. (CASP, p. 191-192.) The District strongly objects to the City's imposition of these costs on schools and other public entities, particularly in light of the fact that the District is solely responsible for the costs of landscaping, lighting and maintenance on its properties, and does not benefit from the services to be paid for through the LLMD.” As the commentor states, the school districts are solely responsible for the costs of landscaping, lighting and maintenance on its properties. The City will consider this request, and will pass this comment onto the Planning Commission and City Council for further discussion. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-8: The commentor states:
“7. Design Standards
The Central Area Specific Plan includes a discussion of design standards for public schools which it identifies as "advisory. " (CASP, pp. 87-88.) However, the Plan also provides that all school sites will be "required" to incorporate site parcel-based post construction best management practices to the extent feasible. (Id.) As the City knows, schools can be exempted from local zoning requirements, as the construction of schools is under the jurisdiction of the Division of the State Architect ("DSA"). The District is willing to work collaboratively with the City regarding these issues, but cannot agree to the imposition of standards and guidelines that are not legally required.” The commentor requests that the City work with the school district on issues relating to design standards for public schools. The commentor also asserts that “schools can be exempted from local zoning requirements.” It should be noted that stormwater mitigation is not a zoning code regulation, but a federal and state mandate. Any property, including schools, who discharge into the City's jurisdictional property are required to meet the City's NPDES permit requirements. The City will consider this request and pass this comment onto the Planning Commission and City Council for further discussion.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-129 On the question of zoning consistency, the City notes that, under Government Code section 53094, subdivision (b), it takes a two-thirds vote of the governing board of a school district to obviate the need to comply with municipal zoning. Whether such an outcome will occur cannot be predicted with certainty at present. (See City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified Sch. Dist. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 152, 216 [“a school district must abide by local zoning ordinances unless it chooses to exercise its right of exemption”].) On the issue of the drainage and water quality requirements that new schools must satisfy, the City notes that Government Code Section 53097 provides that, notwithstanding Section 53094, “the governing board of a school district shall comply with any city or county ordinance (1) regulating drainage improvements and conditions, (2) regulating road improvements and conditions, or (3) requiring the review and approval of grading plans as these ordinance provisions relate to the design and construction of onsite improvements which affect drainage, road conditions, or grading, and shall give consideration to the specific requirements and conditions of city or county ordinances relating to the design and construction of offsite improvements.” (Italics added.) No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-9: The commentor states:
“C. Environmental Factors Impacting District Schools
The Draft EIR acknowledges that development facilitated by the Specific Plan would increase the demand for new schools which has the potential to cause "significant and unavoidable" substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-23, 3.9 -24.) The Draft EIR identifies a number of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction of the school sites within the Specific Plan, but it does not adequately consider the potential impacts on the District that could result from build-out of the Project, which is estimated to take place over 20 to 30 years. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-22, 3.9-28.) Depending on the number of residential units completed during the initial phases of Project construction, the District may need to open one or more new schools well before complete Project build-out.

The Draft EIR should consider and analyze the potential environmental impacts of such construction on District students and staff and should include mitigation measures as needed to render those impacts less than significant.

Environmental impacts on the District that should be analyzed in the Draft EIR include the following:”
This commentor provides an introduction to its individual requests for specific environmental impacts to be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Further response to the specifics of this comment are provided under response I-10 through I-13. The City believes that, in assessing the impacts of developing the entire Specific Plan Area, the EIR has sufficiently addressed, at least in general terms, the physical impacts of constructing new schools within the Specific Plan Area. The footprint-related impacts of the schools are subsumed within the analysis of the footprint of the entire Specific Plan.

The reference made by the commentor to significant and unavoidable impacts relate to the impacts of physical development, and not school overcrowding or the increased demand for new schools.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-130 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan In addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of the steps that might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service.

For example, if proposed new development would create an increased demand for public services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order to provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031–1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].) The Draft EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with school development in the Specific Plan Area. The Draft EIR discloses that there would be impacts related to relevant environmental topics included throughout the Draft EIR, such as: air quality (Section 3.1), biological resources (Section 3.2), cultural resources (Section 3.3), greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Section 3.4), hazards and hazardous materials (Section 3.5), hydrology and water quality (Section 3.6), noise (Section 3.7) population (Section 3.8), public services (Section 3.9), transportation (Section 3.10), and utilities (Section 3.11). Page 3.9-21 of the Draft EIR states that “[a] detailed discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Furthermore, site-specific environmental review would be required for each school by the responsible School District prior to approval of a design for the facility and would consider any site-specific impacts unknown at this time.” (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8.) The analysis in the Draft EIR considers the physical development of the sites that are identified in the Specific Plan, as well as operational impacts associated with a school facility in those locations. The Draft EIR does not speculate beyond the material facts that are available for any school sites that would serve the project at the time the Specific Plan is being considered.

Cumulative impacts from public facilities resulting from the construction of public facilities, including schools, is addressed under Impact 3.9-6 (pages 3.9-33 and 3.9-35 of the DEIR). As provided under Impact 3.9-6, the 2002 General Plan Final Program EIR analyzed impacts to public services (including schools), and found that General Plan policies addressed the public services needs of future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time, but the Final Program EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan policies and mitigation measures included in Sections 5.1 through 5.12 of the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-131 It is important to consider the statutory requirements that apply to school facilities impacts in this discussion. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impacts caused by new development. Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

In Chawanakee Unified School Dist. v. County of Madera (June 21, 2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1027- 1028, the court determined that Government Code section 65996(a) obviated the need to analyze and mitigate a development’s direct impacts on existing school facilities in an EIR because Education Code sets forth “exclusive methods” for consideration and mitigation of such impacts. Here, the School District has established the appropriate fee for all development in the City of Salinas. This fee established by the School District, following the requirements of State law, is the fair share funding that the City will require of this development. By statute, the City and School District cannot require fees beyond those allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. Nor may the City deny the project proponents’ request for approval of the Specific Plan solely due to projected funding shortfalls. The City will fully cooperate with the School District, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by School District.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-10: The commentor states:
“1. Noise Generated by Potential Construction
The Draft EIR defines a "sensitive receptor" as "a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants." (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-12.) Sensitive receptors include schools. Consistent with CEQA, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment if it generates emissions that, among other things, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-20.) The Draft EIR identifies Everett Alvarez High School as a sensitive receptor to the south of the Plan Area, but does not identify AUSD's existing 12-acre school site or the 18-acre site that may be transferred to AUSD, as potential sensitive receptors that could be affected by construction of the Project. (Id.) The Draft EIR deems the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations as "less than significant with mitigation," but the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR are general in nature, and do not include any measures designed to reduce potential exposure of District students and staff to airborne pollutants, particularly during those times when students are outdoors for recess, play, or physical education. As the District may need to open and operate schools within the

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-132 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Specific Plan area during initial construction phases of the Project, the effects of air quality on schools should be further analyzed in the Draft EIR.” The commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, we need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

The environmental analysis in the Draft EIR is generic and does not address parcel by parcel impacts, including parcels on which future schools may be located. However,such an analysis is not required.

This sort of analysis can be conducted by the school district itself when it has a specific school to propose. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Noise impacts need not be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis. The Draft EIR does, however, provide a discussion of construction-related noise impacts. The school district will be the lead agency then, and can make whatever use of this Draft EIR it wants.

The school district is essentially demanding project-specific analysis for a school that has not yet been designed, based on planning criteria unique to schools from the Education Code. The City does not have that obligation in an EIR for a long-term specific plan. The school district itself must comply with CEQA and Education Code requirements when the time comes to propose and build a school.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-11: The commentor states:
“2. Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
The Draft EIR summarizes the results of a 2010 environmental report prepared for the 18- acre school site in the western part of the Specific Plan area, in which the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") "provided a 'no further action' determination and granted approval from a potential contamination assessment perspective to construct a school site." (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-5, 3.5-6.) Since the land has been in use for agricultural purposes since the completion of the 2010 report, an updated assessment and survey would be needed to confirm whether or not hazardous substances, such as agricultural pesticides, are now present at above regulatory screening levels. The key point here is that the environmental effects of development on the site remain uncertain.

The Draft EIR includes measures intended to mitigate any significant hazards to the proposed school site due to siting or placement of infrastructure, but does not include any discussion of potentially hazardous materials that may be transported or utilized in proximity to the COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-133 school site(s) during Project construction. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-21 to 3.5-24.) The Draft EIR should include specific information as to these specific hazardous materials and should include appropriate mitigation measures, as would be necessary if the District is operating schools during Specific Plan construction.”
Similar to the previous comment, the commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, we need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

Hazards impacts need not be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis. (See Response to Comment I3.) This sort of analysis can be conducted by the school district itself when it has a specific school to propose. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8.) The school district will be the lead agency then, and can make whatever use of this Draft EIR it wants. The Draft EIR does, however, provide a discussion of hazard-related impacts.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-12: The commentor states:
“3. Noise
The Draft EIR notes the potential exposure to sensitive receptors to noise from proposed park and school uses, and includes proposed mitigation measures that, among other things, would require schools to install sound walls and berms when a school site directly abuts a residential property line and site design cannot achieve minimum noise standards. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-29.) Missing from the Draft EIR is discussion of the potential impact of noise generated by construction vehicles and construction equipment on District schools which may be operational during Project construction.“

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-134 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Similar to the previous two comments, the commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, the City need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

This sort of analysis can be conducted by the school district itself when it has a specific school to propose. Noise impacts need not be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis. The Draft EIR does, however, provide a discussion of construction-related noise impacts. The school district will be the lead agency then, and can make whatever use of this Draft EIR it wants.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-13: The commentor states:
“4. Environmental Factors Affecting Potential Elementary School Site As discussed above in Section B.2., the Draft EIR does not consider any of the environmental impacts or studies related to the proposed 18-acre school site, including: (1) the effects of a roadway and public pathway running through the middle of the site; (2) the need for an updated DTSC survey to evaluate potential contaminants; (3) a hydrology report to evaluate potential flooding and runoff issues; or ( 4) the need for a gas pipeline survey. Without these studies and evaluations, the Draft EIR is incomplete, and the District cannot begin to assess the suitability of the property for use as an elementary school.” This comment is noted and has been addressed throughout the previous comment responses (above). The environmental analysis in the Draft EIR is generic and does not address parcel by parcel impacts, including parcels on which future schools may be located. However, such an analysis is not required. This sort of analysis can be conducted by the school district itself when it has a specific school to propose. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Noise impacts need not be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-135 The Draft EIR has evaluated the environmental impacts related to the 18-acre school site, as applicable, as required by CEQA. The school district is essentially demanding project-specific analysis for a school that has not yet been designed, based on planning criteria unique to schools from the Education Code. The City does not have that obligation in an EIR for a long-term specific plan. The school district itself must comply with CEQA and Education Code requirements when the time comes to propose and build a school. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-14: The commentor states:
“D. Cumulative Impacts
Environmental impact reports must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's effects on the environment, viewed in conjunction with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, is cumulatively considerable. (14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15130(a).) (See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. 4th 713, 720, finding that piecemeal approval of several projects with related impacts could lead to severe environmental harm.) While a lead agency may incorporate information from previously prepared program EIR into the agency's analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, the lead agency must address all cumulative impacts that were not previously addressed in the program EIR. (Pub. Res. Code§ 21083.3(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs. 14183(b)(3).)
The Project's anticipated impacts on the District, as discussed in this letter, combined with the impacts of the West Area Specific Plan and other forthcoming projects in the area, are cumulatively considerable with regard to environmental concerns. Accordingly, the Draft EIR must consider the Central Area Specific Plan in light of these cumulative impacts.” This comment is noted. Cumulative impacts from public facilities resulting from the construction of public facilities, including schools, is addressed under Impact 3.9-6 (pages 3.9-33 and 3.9-35 of the DEIR). As provided under Impact 3.9-6, the 2002 General Plan Final Program EIR analyzed impacts to public services (including schools), and found that General Plan policies addressed the public services needs of future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time, but the Final Program EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan policies and mitigation measures included in Sections

5.1 through 5.12 of the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR.

Cumulative impacts are also discussed for each environmental topic in Chapter 4.0 Other CEQA Required Topics of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts throughout the project Draft EIR address the project’s anticipated impacts, combined with the impacts of the West Area Specific Plan as well as other projects in the area. No further response to this topic is warranted.

Response I-15: The commentor states provides concluding statements, summarizing the concerns the commentor has regarding the proposed project, particularly how the project may impact the

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-136 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan District’s ability to serve the students resulting from the project. No further response to this comment is warranted.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-137 JJ--11

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-138 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan J-1
(Continued)
J-2
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-139 J-3

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-140 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan J-4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-141 J-4
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-142 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan J-4
(Continued)
J-5
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-143 J-5 (Continued)
J-6
J-7

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-144 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan J-7 (Continued)
J-8
J-9
J-10
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-145 J-10
(Continued)
J-11

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-146 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter J: Devon B. Lincoln, Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Salinas Union School District
Response J-1: The commentor provides an introductory statement and provides a summary of the commentor’s concerns with the Draft EIR. Discussion of each of the issues summarized in this portion of the comment letter are provided in the responses, below.

Response J-2: The commentor states:
“1. District Communications with City and Developers
As envisioned by its developers, the 760 acre Specific Plan would include up to 3,911 residential units (both single family and multi-family residential units.

The Specific Plan includes three school sites, totaling approximately 48 acres: one 18-acre middle school site owned by SUHSD; one 12-acre elementary school site owned by Alisa! Union School District ("AUSD"); and one 18-acre site currently located within the Santa Rita Union School District ("SRUSD") that was originally designated by the developers for a middle/elementary school. (Draft EIR, pp. 2.0-15-2.0-16.) As noted in the Draft EIR, on April 28, 2020, the three districts submitted a petition for a territory transfer (i.e., a boundary adjustment) to the County Committee for School District Organization, which, if approved, would result in the transfer of that portion of SRUSD within the Specific Plan to AUSD, meaning that the 18-acre school site would no longer be within the territory served by SRUSD , and AUSD would instead potentially acquire and build facilities on that site (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-16). Although not acknowledged by the Draft BIR but as further discussed below, the proposed territory transfer has been planned, with the City's knowledge, for at least two years.

The Specific Plan states that the Project developers "have worked with and continue to work with, all three School Districts to identify each District's needs in terms of the appropriate size and location of the elementary and middle school sites." (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-16.) That claim overstates the communications between the parties that have occurred concerning the Specific Plan.”
This comment is noted. This comment focuses on the school district communications with the City and developers, which is an environmental topic subject to CEQA. It is worth noting that the Draft EIR accounts for the potential district boundary change identified by this comment in Section 3.9:

Public Services of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the text and tables provided on pages 3.9-24 through

3.9-26 provide an analysis of the potential for adverse physical impacts from the construction of new schools associated with the project, for both the scenario where no boundary change were to occur, as well as the scenario were a boundary change to occur. Additionally, Table 3.9-12 on page

3.9-25 of the Draft EIR identifies the student generation that is anticipated to occur were the district boundary change to go forward.

Because the demand for new schools will gradually increase over the time period in which buildout COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-147 of the Specific Plan occurs, the City is committed to consulting with the school district, as may be applicable as part of the City’s process for considering proposed tentative subdivision maps within the Specific Plan area. Such consultations will allow the City to keep the school districts apprised of the project proponents’ progress in seeking and obtaining entitlements for incremental amounts of new development within the Specific Plan area, thereby helping the districts to keep pace with new residential development as it occurs. Over time, as the Plan Area gradually builds out, the districts might reassess their needs or consider new or different sites for their proposed facilities, depending on factors such as the number of potential students living within newly developed areas and the number of additional students projected to live within the Plan Area at buildout. These tentative map consultations, then, will provide a kind of development phasing that will allow the districts to proactively plan for obtaining the sites and construction funds they will need to allow for the timely construction of new schools as the demands for them materialize over time. No further response is warranted.

Response J-3: The commentor states:
“2. Potential Increases in Enrollment
The District, which enrolls more than 16,000 students, operates four middle schools, five high schools, a continuation high school, a community day school, an alternative school, and an adult education center. Presently, students attending AUSD, Graves, Lagunita, Salinas City, Santa Rita, Spreckels and Washington Union school districts matriculate to Salinas for middle and/or high school.

The Specific Plan includes up to 3,911 single family and multi-family residential units which the City has calculated would generate up to 837 middle and high school students if the pending territory transfer is approved. Of that number, 311 would be new middle school students and 526 would be new high school students.1 (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-25) As an initial matter, the District notes that these figures are inaccurate, as they were calculated using student generation rates ("SGRs") from the District's 2018 School Facility Needs Analysis, rather than the May 2020 School Facility Needs Analysis ("2020 SFNA"). As noted in the 2020 SFNA, the District's total 2019-2020 enrollment of 16,250 students exceeds its current capacity of 13,433 by 2,817 students (428 students in grades 7-8 and 2,389 students in grades 9-12). Based on information from the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey, the number of new residential units projected to be built in the District over the next five years is 1,040 single-family and 200 multi-family units. These numbers do not include residential units to be constructed within the Central Area Specific Plan. This future residential growth is expected to generate 269 additional students. This means that the District has zero excess pupil capacity available for students in grades 7-12 generated by future residential development, excluding students generated by the Project. (2020 SFNA, pp. 1, 8.)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-148 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Land use assumptions set out in the Transportation and Circulation section of the Draft EIR include "two elementary schools with 600 students enrolled in each and one middle school with 803 students enrolled." (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-28.) Even assuming the District could accommodate middle school students generated by the Project on the site it already owns within the Specific Plan, it will also need new facilities to serve its unhoused high school age students, as well as new high students generated by the Project. However, with the exception of the middle school site already owned by the District, the Draft EIR does not consider the additional facilities or staffing at its existing sites the District will need in order to serve its projected numbers of unhoused pupils, as well as the students generated by the Project. This does not comply with the City's General Plan Policy LU-9.1, which requires the developers to "work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students." (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-15.) These capacity concerns should be more fully analyzed and addressed in the Draft EIR.” The commentor states that the estimates for student generation contained in the Draft EIR are inaccurate, as they did not utilize the current school district SGRs, as set out in the May 2020 School Facilities Needs Analysis for the SUHSD. Therefore, based on this comment, we have updated page the Draft EIR, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR, as provided at the end of this comment response.

The commentor then provides information regarding the school district’s planning for serving the students generated by the project, in addition to the students the school district is already planning to serve. However, the Draft EIR was not required to undertake a site-specific analysis for any of the school sites. The City’s approach to CEQA compliance has been correct. Consistent with SB 50 (see Draft EIR, pp. 39-14 - 3.9-15, 3.9-20), the City addressed the physical effects of school construction and operation, along with all other land uses within the Specific Plan area (e.g., effects on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, etc.) but did not treat school overcrowding as an environmental impact category subject to CEQA. Rather, the City is requiring the applicants to pay their school impact fees, as contemplated by Government Code Section 65996, which provides that the payment of such fees is deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for any demands on school facilities caused by new development. The Districts’ demand for analysis of impacts on the Districts’ financial condition goes beyond what the Legislature has declared is required or allowed under CEQA. The demand is also contrary to long-standing distinctions between environmental impacts, on the one hand, and economic or social impacts, on the other. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.)
The commentor is essentially demanding project-specific analysis for schools that have not yet been designed, based on planning criteria unique to schools from the Education Code. The City does not have that obligation in an EIR for a long-term Specific Plan. (See Response to Comment I-3.) The school district itself must comply with CEQA and Education Code requirements when the time comes to propose and build a school. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8.) COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-149 Moreover, the commentor argues that the City has violated General Plan policy LU- 9.1, which reads as follows: “Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.” This policy creates an ongoing obligation, which the City continues to satisfy. The proposed project contains proposed school sites that, based on the information that the City had at the time it released the document, the City thought were likely to be viable school sites. The fact that the school districts might disagree, or ask for refinements to the Specific Plan, does not mean that the City is not satisfying its obligation to identify lands that the City considers to be potentially suitable for schools. This policy does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, the school districts themselves, working under Department of Education criteria, must decide where they want to build new schools.

Based on the first part of this comment, pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-26 of the Draft EIR have been updated as follows (in conjunction with other errata updates associated with the following text), which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

TABLE 3.9-10: STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR THE SUHSD, AUSD, AND SRUSD SOURCES: SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2018 SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION REPORTSCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 2020 ; SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, MARCH 6, 2018. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, JULY 202, 20182020.

NOTES: AUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS; SRUSD ONLY CONTAINS ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS; SUHSD ONLY CONTAINS MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS.

DWELLING UNIT TYPE EDUCATION LEVEL GENERATION FACTORS

ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (AUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.67550.4180
Middle N/A
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD

GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC AB)
Elementary 0.73980.2857
Middle N/A
High N/A

SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (SRUSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary 0.3148
Middle 0.1955
High N/A

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC A-B)
Elementary 0.5715
Middle 0.1892
High N/A

SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (SUHSD)

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND (NG A-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.1350.114
High 0.2080.137

MULTIFAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
(NG-C) AND VILLAGE CENTER (VC A-B)
Elementary N/A
Middle 0.0090.028
High 0.0410.011

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-150 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TABLE 3.9-11: PROJECTED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STUDENT GENERATION ESTIMATES (NO BOUNDARY

CHANGE)
SOURCE: 2018 SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION REPORTSCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 2020; SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, MARCH 6, 2018. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS, JULY 20, 2018JULY 2, 2020. NOTES: * ASSUMES DEVELOPMENT OCCURS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITIES WOULD ALLOW. ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE REDUCED. ** ASSUMES THE HIGHEST VALUES WHEN COMPARING ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERATION RATES FOR EACH GRADE COHORT. ACTUAL ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES AND STUDENTS GENERATED MAY VARY DEPENDING ON FUTURE ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES. ***TOTAL MAY NOT ADD UP TO DUE ROUNDING.

TABLE 3.9-12: PROJECTED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STUDENT GENERATION ESTIMATES (WITH BOUNDARY

DWELLING

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

DWELLING
UNITS*

EDUCATION LEVEL

GENERATION
FACTORS**

POTENTIAL

STUDENTS
GENERATED***

SINGLE-FAMILY
(NE A-B) AND
(NG A-B)
2,194
Elementary 0.67550.4180 1,482917
Middle 0.1955 429
High 0.208 456

MULTIFAMILY

NEIGHBORHOO

D GENERAL
(NG-C) AND

PROVIDED BY THE ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHILE THE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL GENERATION FACTORS ARE PROVIDED BY THE

Response J-4: The commentor states:
“3. Insufficient School Funding
A table of proposed funding sources for public schools set out in the Central Area Specific Plan document lists "School District Fees" (i.e. school impact or developer fees) and "TAMC State and Federal", which is broadly described as funding that may be available from regional, State and/or federal sources. (CASP, p. 191).

The Draft EIR states that the payment of school impact fees is "full and complete facilities mitigation" for the impact of new development. (Draft EIR, p. 3 .9-26.) This is incorrect. In 10 For the purposes of these projections, while under the ‘No Boundary Change’ scenario, student generation factors from the SRUSD (in addition to the other two school districts) were utilized, under the ‘With Boundary Change scenario’, the SRUSD school generation factors were not utilized.

DWELLING

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

DWELLING
UNITS*

EDUCATION LEVEL

GENERATION
FACTORS**

POTENTIAL

STUDENTS
GENERATED***
SINGLEFAMILY
(NE A-B) AND
(NG A-B)
2,194
Elementary 0.67550.4180 1,482917
Middle 0.1350.114 296250
High 0.2080.137 456301

MULTIFAMILY

NEIGHBORHOO

D GENERAL
(NG-C) AND

VILLAGE

CENTER (VC
A-B)
1,717
Elementary 0.73980.2857 1,270491
Middle 0.0090.028 1548
High 0.0410.011 7019
Total 3,911 3,5912,025

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-152 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan making that assertion, the Draft EIR relies on the language of Senate Bill ("SB") 50 which declares that the payment of the developer fees authorized by Education Code section 17620 constitutes "full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act on the provision of adequate school facilities." (Gov. Code § 65995(h).) (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-26.) California courts have since acknowledged that developer fees do not constitute full and complete mitigation for school-related impacts other than school overcrowding. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.) For purposes of considering the Draft EIR and the impact of the Specific Plan on schools, it is critical to understand that as of the date of this writing, funding at the State for school facilities is virtually nonexistent, and local funding sources are likewise hard to come by.

Districts may be eligible for up to 100% if they are able to claim "hardship" status (if the districts are unable to raise sufficient local funds to match the State grant).

After submitting funding applications, and after the applications are received by the OPSC, district projects will then be added to the State's "workload list" where project applications are reviewed on a continuous basis, generally based on the timing of the applications received. If the applications are approved, then they are moved to the "Unfunded List," which includes approved applications for which no bond money has yet been apportioned. School districts often have to wait several years to receive State funding, and will only then receive funding sufficient to cover a portion of the district's project. However, if State bond funding is depleted (as is now the case after the exhaustion of construction funds under Proposition 51 and the failure of Proposition 13 on the March 2020 ballot), then school districts who submit applications will not be guaranteed to receive any funding, and will instead be placed on an "Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority" list. There is no guarantee that these projects will ever receive reimbursement.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-153 In all, the State facilities funding system is in a perpetual state of flux, and it is never certain if, or when, a school district will receive such funding for a given project. This is especially true at the present time, after State voters rejected Proposition 13 on March 3, 2020. That ballot measure would have authorize $8 billion in construction and modernization for K-12 school districts. Instead, school districts have no reasonable expectation of securing State funding for construction until voters can once again be persuaded to support school construction; given the uncertainty of the current economic picture, we cannot assume that will happen any time soon. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the District will secure State funding for construction of new schools in time for the families that will move into the homes proposed by the Specific Plan.

Theoretically, another third of school facilities financing should come from local funds, including local general obligation (GO) bond funds and property and parcel taxes. Since the passage of SB 50, the inadequacies of State and developer sourced funding have become more apparent, and more pressure has been placed on school districts to fund facilities from local sources, primarily through local GO bonds. However, districts are often unable to generate sufficient local funds due to bonding capacity limitations, lack of existing community voter approvals to subsidize schools for new development, and general lack of voter willingness to accept additional local property assessments. In this case, the District is seeking passage of a bond in November 2020 that would, in part, fund construction of its middle school site. However, it will still face the uphill battle of convincing current homeowners to tax themselves for the purpose of building schools that will serve families in homes that have not yet been built - a tough sell, to say the least.

Finally, as noted, statutory school impact fees (also known as "developer fees") are anticipated to supply one third of school construction costs. The reality is that the amount of developer fees received by school districts often falls woefully short of the impacts caused by such development.

In the case of the Specific Plan, reliance on developer fees and unspecified "regional, State and or federal sources" to fund school facilities is unrealistic, as developer fees will likely cover only a portion of the costs for schools, facilities, staff, and services required in order to serve the new students that could be generated by the Project. The cost to acquire property and construct a single new middle school can exceed 60 million dollars. The estimated cost of a new high school is closer to 100 million dollars. This estimate does not include interest costs associated with debt incurred to finance the construction of facilities.

The 2020 SFNA also reports the costs of providing school facilities to for the District's 2,817 currently "unhoused" students. For its 428 unhoused 7-8 grade students, those costs total $25,500,668. The District has a total amount of $21. 7 million in funding (bond funds, developer fees, and special reserve funds) available for facilities for its existing unhoused 7- 8 grade students-a shortfall of approximately 3.8 million dollars. The cost for providing

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-154 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan school facilities for the District's existing unhoused pupils in grades 9 to 12 totals $144,835,514. The District's total available funds for housing these students is approximately $42,986, 786-a shortfall of approximately $101 million dollars. In sum, the District does not have sufficient funds for school facilities for its projected 2,817 unhoused pupils over the next five years, let alone more than 800 new 7-12 grade students generated by the Project. (2020 SFNA, pp. 8-9.)
It must also be noted that developer fees would be collected incrementally during the anticipated 20-30 year build out of the Project. Thus, the District will not have access to a "lump sum" amount of developer fees to fund needed new facilities.

This may include bussing and other transportation to existing District sites, as well as further overcrowding of those sites. These are very real, non-speculative potential environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan that have not been contemplated by the Draft EIR, and in that way it is not a sufficient analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Project.” The commentor state that, if sufficient money for school construction does not materialize, then the school districts may have to add new facilities at existing schools or may have to change transportation or bussing patterns. The analysis requested by the commentor would be “speculative.” The City has no way of knowing how, over a 20-year period, each individual school might deal with its inability to build a particular school within the Specific Plan Area. Importantly, the commenter has not offered any specific scenarios for the City to consider, despite being in a far better position than the City to predict how the school districts might react to funding shortfalls over the coming years. CEQA does not require speculation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15145.) “[O]rdering CEQA review in the absence of a plan involving an identifiable impact would not be meaningful.” (Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 643, 657.) No good “ purpose would be served by an [environmental impact report] that could only speculate on future environmental consequences.” (Id.) (See Response to Comment I-3.) No land use plan (general plan or specific plan) is understood to guarantee that the planned uses will materialize. Rather, such plans set forth a vision of land use that might materialize if market conditions and public financing allow it to happen. The Draft EIR for the project is not deficient simply because neither the City nor the project developers can guarantee adequate school funding.

Policy LU-9.1: Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.

Resources Code, § 211251.8.) While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school districts with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school districts through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees; instead, that responsibility lies with the school district. Education Code (EC) section 17620 grants the school districts the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-156 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan require fees beyond that allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

Moreover, in Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1028, the court said in that case is that, though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, biological resources, and the like. The City did that here, as the City considered school construction as part of full buildout of the project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development. Grading and site alteration are required for any kind of development.

The City’s approach to CEQA compliance has been correct. Consistent with SB 50 (see Draft EIR, pp. 39-14 - 3.9-15, 3.9-20), the City addressed the physical effects of school construction and operation, along with all other land uses within the Specific Plan Area (e.g., effects on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, etc.) but did not treat school overcrowding as an environmental impact category subject to CEQA. Rather, the City is requiring the applicants to pay their school impact fees, as contemplated by Government Code Section 65996, which provides that the payment of such fees is deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for any demands on school facilities caused by new development. The Districts’ demand for analysis of impacts on the Districts’ financial condition goes beyond what the Legislature has declared is required or allowed under CEQA. The demand is also contrary to long-standing distinctions between environmental impacts, on the one hand, and economic or social impacts, on the other. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.)
The City has established sites for new schools to ensure that there is adequate land set aside for the development of new school facilities within the Specific Plan Area. Ultimately, the Education Code and CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8) task the school district with the responsibility for design and construction of its own schools, and for conducting its own project-specific CEQA analysis in doing so. While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school district with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school district through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees, instead that responsibility lies with the school district. Education Code (EC) 17620 grants the school district the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. No further response is warranted.

Response J-5: The commentor states:
“4. Environmental Impacts from Project "Phasing"
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-157 The Draft EIR provides for a "phased" approach to development of the Specific Plan area.

This phased approach, which is discussed briefly in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR, provides that the Specific Plan area is owned by multiple landowners and the Specific Plan is intentionally designed to allow each landowner to develop their property independent of the development by other landowners. (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-25.) There is only minimal discussion of this phasing concept located elsewhere in the Draft EIR. The few other references to this phasing concept merely suggest that development of the Specific Plan area (site improvements and construction) are "assumed" by the Draft EIR to take place over the course of approximately 20 years (2020 to 2040), and that such development is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed development. (Id.) The Draft EIR does not include an estimated schedule for development (or any other information regarding the sequencing or scheduling of development), nor does the Draft EIR impose any restrictions or limitations on the timing of development within the Specific Plan area.

The Draft EIR's assumption that development within the Specific Plan area will generally proceed from the surrounding arterial and collector streets towards the center of the Specific Plan area is problematic. (Id.) The Draft EIR offers no evidence or other information suggesting why this assumption should be drawn. In fact, it seems equally likely that significant development of the Specific Plan Area will happen concurrently in different sections of the Plan area. With regard to public schools, the Draft EIR merely notes that school construction will be based on projections of the needs for schools as the Specific Plan area and surrounding area develop. Without further explanation, the Draft EIR goes on to state that "the middle school site is expected to be developed first." (Id.) The City has acknowledged that there is a shortage of housing available in the Salinas area and that the need for additional housing is critical. Additionally, economic and market conditions are not selective, and when they are good for one developer, they are typically good for all developers. The bottom line is that to adequately review, analyze, and address all potential environmental impacts arising from the project, the Draft EIR must analyze the impacts to the environment resulting from significant concurrent development within the Specific Plan area.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-158 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The commentor faults the City for not including any phasing analysis, and states that the Draft EIR mainly just looks at the environmental impacts of buildout. Yet the school district does not cite any authority for the alleged need to address phasing, nor does the commentor cite any authority indicating that addressing full project buildout is inappropriate. Indeed, looking at buildout is the normal approach taken in EIRs, and is consistent with CEQA case law. CEQA does not require analysis of individual phases of projects. For market-driven projects such as specific plans, lead agencies have no way of identifying a specific “schedule” for development, as requested by the commentor.

Therefore, the school district is incorrect in stating that “the Draft EIR must analyze the impacts to the environment resulting from significant concurrent development within the Specific Plan area” and that “[t]he Draft EIR is deficient in this regard.” (See also Response to Comment I-6.) No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response J-6: The commentor states:
“C. Environmental Factors Impacting District Schools
The Draft EIR acknowledges that development facilitated by the Specific Plan would increase the demand for new schools which has the potential to cause "significant and unavoidable" substantial adverse physical environmental impacts (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-23, 3.9-24.) The Draft EIR identifies a number of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction of the school sites within the Specific Plan, but it does not adequately consider the potential impacts on the District that could result from build-out of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-22, 3.9-28.) Depending on the number of residential units completed during the initial phases of Project construction, the District may need to construct and open a middle school on the site it already owns in the Specific Plan area and may need to add additional facilities to existing sites, well before complete Project build-out. The Draft EIR should consider and analyze the potential environmental impacts of such construction on District students and staff and should include mitigation measures as needed to render those impacts less than significant.

Environmental impacts on the District that should be analyzed in the Draft EIR include the following.”
This commentor provides an introduction to its individual requests for specific environmental impacts to be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Further response to the specifics of this comment are provided under responses J-7 through J-9 (below). The City believes that, in assessing the impacts of developing the entire Specific Plan Area, the EIR has sufficiently addressed, at least in general terms, the physical impacts of constructing new schools within the Specific Plan Area. And the City need not speculate about how the District might respond to funding shortfalls in the absence of specific strategies revealed by the District itself. (See Response to Comment I-3.) The footprint-related impacts of the schools are subsumed within the analysis of the footprint of the entire Specific Plan.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-159 In addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of the steps that might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-160 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan It is important to consider the statutory requirements that apply to school facilities impacts in this discussion. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impacts caused by new development. Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

In Chawanakee Unified School Dist. v. County of Madera (June 21, 2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1027- 1028, the court determined that Government Code section 65996(a) obviated the need to analyze and mitigate a development’s direct impacts on existing school facilities in an EIR because Education Code sets forth “exclusive methods” for consideration and mitigation of such impacts. The School District has established the appropriate fee for all development in the City of Salinas. This fee established by the School District, following the requirements of State law, is the fair share funding that the City will require of this development. By statute, the City and School District cannot require fees beyond those allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. Nor may the City deny the project proponents’ request for approval of the Specific Plan solely due to projected funding shortfalls. The City will fully cooperate with the School District, as they have in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by School District.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response J-7: The commentor states:
“1. Noise Generated by Potential Construction
The Draft EIR defines a "sensitive receptor" as "a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants." (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-12.) Sensitive receptors include schools. Consistent with CEQA, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment if it generates emissions that, among other things, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-20.) The Draft EIR identifies Everett Alvarez High School as a sensitive receptor to the south of the Plan Area, but does not identify the middle school site the District already owns with the Plan area (or any future high school site) as a sensitive receptor that could be affected by construction of the Project. (Id.) The Draft EIR deems the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations as "less than significant with mitigation," but the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR are general in nature, and do not include any measures designed to reduce potential exposure of District students and staff to airborne pollutants, particularly during those times when students are outdoors for recess, play, or physical education. As the District may need to open and operate at least one new COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-161 school within the Specific Plan area during initial construction phases of the Project, the effects of air quality on schools should be further analyzed in the Draft EIR.” The commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, we need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response J-8: The commentor states:
“2. Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
The Draft EIR includes measures intended to mitigate any significant hazards to the proposed school site due to siting or placement of infrastructure, but does not include any discussion of potentially hazardous materials that may be transported or utilized in proximity to the school site(s) during Project construction. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-21 to 3.5-24.) The Draft EIR should include specific information as to these specific hazardous materials and should include appropriate measures to mitigate those hazards during Specific Plan construction.” Similar to the previous comment, the commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, we need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-162 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

This sort of analysis can be conducted by the school district itself when it has a specific school to propose. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Hazards impacts need not be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis. The Draft EIR does, however, provide a discussion of hazard-related impacts. The school district will be the lead agency then, and can make whatever use of this Draft EIR it wants.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response J-9: The commentor states:
“3. Noise
The Draft EIR notes the potential exposure to sensitive receptors to noise from proposed park and school uses, and includes proposed mitigation measures that, among other things, would require schools to install sound walls and berms when a school site directly abuts a residential property line and site design cannot achieve minimum noise standards. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-29.) Missing from the Draft EIR is discussion of the potential impact of noise generated by construction vehicles and construction equipment on District schools during Project construction.”
Similar to the previous two comments, the commentor faults the City for not assessing specific impacts on future students and teachers in future schools within the Specific Plan area. Since these students will be part of the Specific Plan area, we need not, under CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378, address health effects on these students. That case holds generally that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents,” though the court goes on to say that “[b]ut when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Here, nothing about the project exacerbates any existing hazards that could affect students of teachers.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-163 The environmental analysis in the Draft EIR is generic and does not address parcel by parcel impacts, including parcels on which future schools may be located. However,such an analysis is not required.

No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response J-10: The commentor states:
“D. Cumulative Impacts
Environmental impact reports must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's effects on the environment, viewed in conjunction with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, is cumulatively considerable. (14 Cal.

5.1 through 5.12 of the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-164 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Cumulative impacts are also discussed for each environmental topic in Chapter 4.0 Other CEQA Required Topics of the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts throughout the project Draft EIR address the project’s anticipated impacts, combined with the impacts of the West Area Specific Plan as well as other projects in the area. No further response to this topic is warranted.

Response J-11: The commentor states provides concluding statements, summarizing the concerns the commentor has regarding the proposed project, particularly how the project may impact the District’s ability to serve the students resulting from the project. No further response to this comment is warranted.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-165 K-1
K-2

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-166 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan K-2
(Continued)
K-3
K-4
K-5
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-167 K-5 (Continued)
K-6

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-168 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan K-7
K-8
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-169 K-9

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-170 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter K: Devon B. Lincoln, Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law representing Santa Rita Union
Response K-1: The commentor provides an introductory statement and provides a summary of the commentor’s concerns with the Draft EIR. Discussion of each of the issues summarized in this portion of the comment letter are provided in the responses, below.

Response K-2: The commentor states:
“The District's major area of concern is the Draft EIR's failure to consider the real impacts, environmental and otherwise of the Project on the school districts that will serve the families who will eventually make their homes within the Specific Plan area. Among other things, the Draft EIR does not adequately address the need for additional schools and facilities that may be needed to serve the students that could be generated by the Project. Without that analysis, the Draft EIR does not adequately portray the potential environmental impacts of the Project. In addition, the Draft EIR does not accurately reflect the realities of school facilities funding, and in tum, fails to appropriately analyze and address the impacts that will result from development of the Specific Plan without the necessary school facilities in place.

In addition, the Draft EIR does not accurately reflect the realities of school facilities funding, and in tum, fails to appropriately analyze and address some of the impacts that will result from development of the Specific Plan with regard to school facilities. A key point for consideration prior to finalizing the EIR should be that even when payment of Statemandated impact mitigation fees ("developer fees") are factored in the calculation, there will likely be insufficient funding for the school facilities and staffing needed to serve the additional students resulting from the Project. Unless the District can obtain that funding, the educational needs of the families residing in the Project may not be met in the manner and at the locations confidently predicted by the Draft EIR.” No land use plan (general plan or specific plan) is understood to guarantee that the planned uses will materialize. Rather, such plans set forth a vision of land use that might materialize if market conditions and public financing allow it to happen. The Draft EIR for the project is not deficient simply because neither the City nor the project developers can guarantee adequate school funding.

The City is merely identifying locations where schools would complement other land uses. The footprint-related impacts of schools are generally no different than those of other uses. Nor are school residents any more or less susceptible to atmospheric environmental conditions than are other area residents. School districts must ultimately make their own siting decisions, and must conduct their own project-specific CEQA analysis in doing so. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Impacts associated with schools are analyzed in Section 3.9 Public Services. Page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR presents the City’s policy toward working with school districts to identify land needed for new schools, and to consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when considering new projects. The City’s policies are as follows:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-171 Policy LU-9.1: Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.

The purpose for identifying sites for new schools is to ensure that there is adequate land set aside for the development of new school facilities within the Specific Plan Area. Ultimately, the Education Code and CEQA (i.e., Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8) task the school districts with the responsibility for design and construction of its own schools, and for conducting its own project-specific CEQA analysis in doing so. While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school districts with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school districts through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees; instead, that responsibility lies with the school district. Education Code (EC) section 17620 grants the school districts the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

The school district has established the appropriate fee for all development in the City of Salinas. This fee established by the school district, following the requirements of State law, is the fair share funding that the City will require of this development. By statute, the City and school district cannot require fees beyond that allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-172 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan City did that here, as the City considered school construction as part of full buildout of the project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development. Grading and site alteration are required for any kind of development.

Response K-3: The commentor states:
“As an additional overall concern, there may be other impacts to students and staff resulting from build-out of the Project that are not addressed in the Draft EIR. These impacts include, but are not limited to, air quality, noise, hazardous materials, and other reasonably foreseeable impacts.”
This comment is noted. In Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1027-1028, the court said in that case is that, though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, biological resources, and the like. The City did that here, as the City considered school construction as part of COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-173 full buildout of the project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development. Grading and site alteration are required for any kind of development.

The City’s approach to CEQA compliance has been correct. Consistent with SB 50 (see Draft EIR, pp. 39-14 - 3.9-15, 3.9-20), the City addressed the physical effects of school construction and operation, along with all other land uses within the Specific Plan area (e.g., effects on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, etc.) but did not treat school overcrowding as an environmental impact category subject to CEQA. Rather, the City is requiring the applicants to pay their school impact fees, as contemplated by Government Code Section 65996, which provides that the payment of such fees is deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for any demands on school facilities caused by new development. The Districts’ demand for analysis of impacts on the Districts’ financial condition goes beyond what the Legislature has declared is required or allowed under CEQA. The demand is also contrary to long-standing distinctions between environmental impacts, on the one hand, and economic or social impacts, on the other. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.)
Ultimately, the Education Code and CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8) task the school district with the responsibility for design and construction of its own schools. While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school district with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school district through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees, instead that responsibility lies with the school district. Education Code (EC) 17620 grants the school district the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. No further response is warranted.

Response K-4: The commentor states:
” Finally, the Draft EIR must consider the cumulative impact of the Central Area Specific Plan together with the anticipated impacts of the West Area Specific Plan, other forthcoming projects in the area, with regard to environmental concerns.

All of the potential impacts of the Project on the District and the territory it serves need to be further analyzed and addressed appropriately in the Draft EIR.” This comment is noted. Cumulative impacts from public facilities resulting from the construction of public facilities, including schools, is addressed under Impact 3.9-6 (pages 3.9-33 and 3.9-35 of the DEIR). As provided under Impact 3.9-6, the 2002 General Plan Final Program EIR analyzed impacts to public services (including schools), and found that General Plan policies addressed the public services needs of future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time,

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-174 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan but the Final Program EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan policies and mitigation measures included in Sections

5.1 through 5.12 of the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR.

Response K-5: The commentor states:
”By the City of Salinas's own calculations, if the pending territory transfer is approved, the 3,911 new homes included in the Specific Plan will generate up to 3,591 new students. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-25-3.9-26.) Of that number, 2,752 would be elementary-age students, 311 would be middle school students, and 526 would be new high school students. (Id.) In the event the territory transfer is not approved, the Project could generate up to 4,033 new students, including 2,752 elementary students, 754 middle school students, and 526 high school students. (Id.)
As discussed in comments letters submitted by AUSD and SUHSD, the critical issue here is that there are insufficient school facilities to house these students and limited available funding to construct new facilities. The funding mechanisms referenced in the Draft EIR are both inadequate and overly optimistic. The bottom line is that the Specific Plan and Draft EIR simply assume that new school facilities will be provided, despite the fact that funding for such facilities is likely to be extremely limited or in some cases, entirely unavailable. This will result in an influx of students to the existing facilities of the school districts serving the Specific Plan area as well as other school districts in the area, including the District, and the environmental impacts of this influx, when appropriate school facilities are not available, have not been properly assessed.

In the case of the District, denial of the pending territory transfer would mean that SRUSD will be responsible for serving elementary and middle school students generated by the Project. SRUSD currently serves approximately 3,569 students in kindergarten through eighth grade at its four elementary schools and two middle schools. As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the District's existing school sites are already over-capacity. In addition to students generated by this Project, the District will also be responsible for serving students generated by the West Area Specific Plan.”
This comment is noted. As previously provided under Response K-2 (above), no land use plan (general plan or specific plan) is understood to guarantee that the planned uses will materialize.

Rather, such plans set forth a vision of land use that might materialize if market conditions and public financing allow it to happen. The Draft EIR for the project is not deficient simply because neither the City nor the project developers can guarantee adequate school funding. The City is merely COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-175 identifying locations where schools would complement other land uses. The footprint-related impacts of schools are generally no different than those of other uses. Nor are school residents any more or less susceptible to atmospheric environmental conditions than are other area residents.

School districts must ultimately make their own siting decisions, and must conduct their own project-specific CEQA analysis in doing so. (See Response to Comment I-3.) Impacts associated with schools are analyzed in Section 3.9 Public Services. Page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR presents the City’s policy toward working with school districts to identify land needed for new schools, and to consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when considering new projects. The City’s policies are as follows:

Policy LU-9.1: Work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students.

The purpose for identifying sites for new schools is to ensure that there is adequate land set aside for the development of new school facilities within the Specific Plan Area. Ultimately, the Education Code and CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8) task the school districts with the responsibility for design and construction of their own schools, and for conducting their own project-specific CEQA analyses in doing so. While the City is not the lead agency responsible for school development, the City fully supports the school districts with the provision of infrastructure and land to facilitate school facility development, as well as the collection of school impact fees to fund new school development. It is standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State’s laws regarding the funding of school facilities, including the payment of school impact fees that are established by the school districts through their nexus study/fee justification efforts. The City, however, does not establish the school impact fees; instead, that responsibility lies with the school district. Education Code (EC) section 17620 grants the school districts the authority to impose school impact fees, and the school district has established impact fees that are applicable to development in the Specific Plan Area. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-176 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan The school district has established the appropriate fee for all development in the City of Salinas. This fee established by the school district, following the requirements of State law, is the fair share funding that the City will require of this development. By statute, the City and school district cannot require fees beyond that allowed by the State law, and affirmed by the District through their approved nexus study. The City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district.

Moreover, in Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1027- 1028, the court said in that case is that, though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, biological resources, and the like. The City did that here, as the City considered school construction as part of full buildout of the project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development. Grading and site alteration are required for any kind of development.

Response K-6: The commentor states:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-177 “The Specific Plan identifies the 18-acre site in the western part of the Project area as a potential location for a District middle/elementary school (if a boundary adjustment is not approved). As discussed in the letter submitted by AUSD, a CDE consultant who reviewed the Draft EIR has identified a number of potential concerns with the proposed site. As an initial concern, the CDE consultant noted the need for a hydrology study to evaluate the potential for flooding. The consultant indicated that the road and greenway/pedestrian pathway running through the center of the site is likely to collect runoff from adjacent houses and Gabilan Creek and then run downslope through the site. Of particular concern, the CDE consultant indicated that a gas pipeline study would almost certainly be required for approval of the property for use as a school site. As the property has been used for agriculture, a new Department of Toxic control Substances ("DTSC") survey to identify contaminants such as pesticides, is also essential. The Project also contemplates the installation of a large underground water main below the road and greenway/pedestrian path running though the school site. Inspections and repairs to pipes and water main components would be highly disruptive to school operations.

These and other concerns may render the proposed site unsuitable for use as a school. As discussed in the letter submitted by AUSD, the Project developers had close to two years' advance notice of the pending territory transfer, but the Draft EIR does not identify or address any environmental impacts related to the western school site with regard to its use as a campus for elementary or middle school students.

The law does not excuse a lead agency from conducting environmental review of impacts other than those that are direct impacts on school facilities. In this instance, there will be impacts resulting directly from the affected school districts' inability to fund the construction of new school facilities and the influx of students to existing school facilities. Installation of portables and ongoing construction on existing sites necessary to accommodate these students will affect noise levels, air quality, loss of greenspace or play areas, and other reasonably foreseeable impacts connected with adding or modifying school facilities at existing school sites. The changing of attendance boundaries, bussing, and inter-district transfer or parents electing to send their children to other school districts or school sites will increase traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian), and will similarly affect noise, and air quality/pollution. The increased traffic in or around existing school sites also raises significant concerns regarding the safety of school visitors, whether it be staff or students and their families. These impacts are a direct result of the Specific Plan and the Draft EIR is required to analyze and address them appropriately. The current Draft EIR fails in this regard.”
This comment is noted. The commentor identifies that the potential boundary changes between the respective school districts would be environmentally significant; however, the generalized footprint impacts of individual schools would not presumably differ simply because the schools are operated on one district rather than another. For example, the commentor identifies that a ‘road and public

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-178 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan pedestrian path’ would run through the middle of an elementary school campus (were the district boundary change to occur). However, it is not clear how this would generate serious safety concerns beyond those that would occur if the site were to stay within the boundaries of the SRUSD, where the site would be developed as a middle/elementary school. City, state, and federal road and sidewalk public safety requirements would apply in both cases. Furthermore, it is not clear how such a pathway would limit the land available for the construction of school facilities, including in one case versus the other. Moreover, crucially, both scenarios were analyzed in Section 3.9: Public Services of the Draft EIR.

Response K-7: The commentor states:
“As was the case with the West Area Specific Plan EIR, the Draft EIR describes a "phased" approach to development of the Specific Plan area that is intentionally designed to allow each landowner to develop their property independent of the development by other landowners. (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-25.) The few other references to phasing in the Draft EIR suggest that development of the Specific Plan area will take place over the course of approximately 20 years (2020 to 2040), and that such development is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed development. (Id.) The Draft EIR does not include an estimated schedule for development (or any other information regarding the sequencing or scheduling of development), nor does the COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-179 Draft EIR impose any restrictions or limitations on the timing of development within the Specific Plan area.

The Draft EIR's assumption that development within the Specific Plan area will generally proceed from the surrounding arterial and collector streets towards the center of the Specific Plan area is unsupported. (Id.) In fact, it seems equally likely that significant development of the Specific Plan Area will happen concurrently in different sections of the Plan area. With regard to public schools, the Draft EIR simply states that school construction will be based on projections of the needs for schools as the Specific Plan area and surrounding area develop. Without further explanation, the Draft EIR goes on to state that "the middle school site is expected to be developed first." (Id.)
The City has acknowledged that there is a shortage of housing available in the Salinas area and that the need for additional housing is critical. Additionally, economic and market conditions are not selective, and when they are good for one developer, they are typically good for all developers. The bottom line is that to adequately review, analyze, and address all potential environmental impacts arising from the project, the Draft EIR must analyze the impacts to the environment resulting from significant concurrent development within the Specific Plan area. The Draft EIR is deficient in this regard.” The commentor faults the City for not including any phasing analysis, and states that the Draft EIR mainly just looks at the environmental impacts of buildout. Yet the school district does not cite any authority for the alleged need to address phasing; nor does the commentor cite any authority indicating that addressing full project buildout is inappropriate. Indeed, looking at buildout is the normal approach taken in EIRs, and is consistent with CEQA case law. CEQA does not require analysis of individual phases of projects. For market-driven projects such as specific plans, lead agencies have no way of identifying a specific “schedule” for development, as requested by the commentor.

Response K-8: The commentor states:
”Environmental impact reports must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's effects on the environment, viewed in conjunction with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, is cumulatively considerable. (14 Cal.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-180 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan As noted above, the District will also be responsible for serving students generated by the West Area Specific Plan. This Project's anticipated impacts on the District, combined with the impacts of the West Area Specific Plan and other forthcoming projects in the area, are cumulatively considerable with regard to environmental concerns. Accordingly, the Draft EIR must consider the Central Area Specific Plan in light of these cumulative impacts.” This comment is noted. As previously described, cumulative impacts from public facilities resulting from the construction of public facilities, including schools, is addressed under Impact 3.9-6 (pages

3.9-33 and 3.9-35 of the DEIR). As provided under Impact 3.9-6, the 2002 General Plan Final Program EIR analyzed impacts to public services (including schools), and found that General Plan policies addressed the public services needs of future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time, but the Final Program EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan policies and mitigation measures included in Sections 5.1 through 5.12 of the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR.

Response K-9: The commentor states:
“The Specific Plan's failure to ensure funding for necessary school facilities and the resulting inadequacies of the Draft EIR are a significant concern for every local educational agency serving the City of Salinas. The District fully supports other local educational agencies that have submitted letters commenting on the inadequacy of the Specific Plan and Draft EIR and agrees with the issues raised in their respective comment letters.

We are hopeful for the opportunity to discuss our concerns and work together to reach a solution that ensures that quality school facilities can be provided. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further, please feel free to contact the District office directly.”
This is a conclusion to the comment letter. Detailed responses to the points identified in this conclusion are provided throughout Responses K-1 through K-8 (above). No further response is required.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-181 L-1
L-2
L-3

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-182 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan L-3
(Continued)
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-183 Response to Letter L: Hanna Muegge, Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD)
Response L-1: This comment provides introductory text. No comment response is warranted.

Response L-2: The comment provides suggestions for modifying and/or improving air quality mitigation measures. In particular, the commentor states that the Air District (i.e. MBARD) encourages the City to implement vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT) reduction measures, rather than traffic calming measures (as identified in Mitigation Measure 3.1-1), to maximize emission reductions and for congestion management.

However, it should be noted that the proposed project Section 3.10-1: Transportation and Circulation does not include VMT analysis, as the Draft EIR was submitted for public review prior to the deadline associated with requiring a VMT analysis as part of the transportation impact analysis (i.e. LOS was used as the criteria instead). Nevertheless, the Specific Plan includes a design that functionally deemphasizes the motor vehicle by establishing new urban principals in the community design, and uses extensive bike and ped facilities with high accessibility and connectivity to the community. The mitigation measures found throughout Section 3.1: Air Quality and Section 3.4:

GHG, Climate Change, and Energy represent the feasible mitigation associated with the significant and unavoidable aspects of the proposed project for these environmental topics.

The commentor also states that the Air District supports the inclusion of roundabouts and making the project plan area a bike- and ped-friendly community. The commentor states that, if signalizing intersections is selected, then the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design should be employed. As provided Section 3.10: Transportation and Circulation, mitigation measures where intersection improvements are required incorporate the requirement that ATCS are implemented in the applicable intersection design.

The commentor further states that the Air District supports incorporating electric vehicle infrastructure in the project plan area designs. To achieve further emission reduction of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Air District suggests including publicly available dual port Level 2 & DC fast-charge charging stations throughout the project plan area. The commentor also states that local annual funding opportunities from the Air District are available for EV charging infrastructure. Mitigation Measure 3.1-7, as provided in Section 3.1: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, requires the installation of Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charge stations at workplace sites with 50 or more employees (10% or more of total available parking spaces, dependent on the existing and anticipated overall electric vehicle fleet mix in Monterey County at time of development) within the Plan Area.

Lastly, the commentor states that the Air District prefers that operational emissions be mitigated at the project level; however, since mitigation measures cannot reduce emissions below significance thresholds, the Air District requests that the City of Salinas cooperate with the Air District to develop off-site mitigation measures. As provided in Section 3.1: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.1-8 requires the project applicant(s) to develop a reasonably feasible offsite mitigation program that provides funding to offset the project-generated air emissions that are still above the Air District’s operational criteria pollutant thresholds after the adoption of other applicable air quality mitigation measures. The offsite mitigation program is subject to the review and approval of

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-184 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan the Air District and the City of Salinas on a project by-project basis (of phase-by-phase), and is intended to be in addition to offsets that are obtained through any on-site mitigation measures.

Therefore, the proposed project already incorporates these suggested mitigation measures.

Separately, it is noted that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, which is provided in Section 3.4: GHG, Climate Change, and Energy of the Draft EIR, also requires off-site measures as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans (GGRP) aimed at achieving specific performance standards.

In summary, as provided throughout Section 3.1: Air Quality and Section 3.4: GHG, Climate Change, and Energy of the Draft EIR, these proposals are incorporated into the mitigation measures found in the Draft EIR (including Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, which includes traffic calming measures; Mitigation Measure 3.1-7, which includes the installation of Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charge stations at workplace sites; Mitigation Measure 3.1-8, which requires the project applicant(s) to develop a reasonably feasible offsite mitigation program to reduce project-generated air emissions below the applicable thresholds; the nineteen mitigation measures provided in Section 3.10:

Transportation and Circulation that require installation of ATCS in the applicable intersection design; and Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, which requires off-site measures as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans (GGRP) aimed at achieving specific performance standards). Therefore, the proposed project already incorporates the mitigation measures associated with air quality as required by CEQA case law. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response L-3: The commentor states:
“Mitigation Measure 3.5-1-3.5.3: Any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424. Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Please contact Shawn Boyle or Cindy Searson in the Compliance Division at (831) 647-9411 for more information regarding these rules. https://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/mbu/cur.htm” This comment is noted. Based on this comment, the City has updated Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 of the Draft EIR, as follows, to incorporate this language into Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, as well as the associated mitigation measure contained in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR, as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

Pages 3.5-20 and 3.5-21:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-185 Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to:
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 2) Investigate structures for asbestos-containing materials and lead. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a Cal-OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S. EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. Any ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

Any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424.

Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-186 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan further assessment or remediation prior to planned development. If the investigation and analytical results of the soil samples determines the soils contain threshold levels of PCBs, materials must be disposed of as a hazardous waste and shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.
5) Observations and a screening level Phase II ESA soil sampling and analytical testing shall be completed for APNs 211-013-003, -007, -010, and -011 prior to any development approvals.

Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

Pages ES-33 and ES-35 (Tables ES-2):

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to:
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.
2) Investigate structures for asbestos-containing materials and lead. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a Cal-OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S. EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. Any ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

In addition, any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424. Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Any load-bearing removal in the structures is defined as a demolition activity by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulation and District Rule 424. This activity must also be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.
3) The two known gasoline USTs located on APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and -011 and APN 153-091-001 shall require proper removal in accordance with Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development. Any unused fuel and oil ASTs and containers located in the vicinity of the agricultural buildings and equipment yards shall be properly removed and recycled or disposed of. Any associated petroleum hydrocarbon subsurface impacts associated with the USTs, ASTs and fuel and oil containers/storage areas shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-187 Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 4) Investigation and reporting for Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) related soil impacts (associated with polemounted transformers) at the fenced former substation located on the southern portion of APN 211-013-012 shall be required prior to disturbance of the area. Soil sampling and analytical testing shall be required to determine if subsurface impacts require further assessment or remediation prior to planned development. If the investigation and analytical results of the soil samples determines the soils contain threshold levels of PCBs, materials must be disposed of as a hazardous waste and shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 5) Observations and a screening level Phase II ESA soil sampling and analytical testing shall be completed for APNs 211-013-003, -007, -010 and -011 prior to any development approvals. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

No further response is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-188 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan M-1
M-2
M-3
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-189 M-3
(Continued)

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-190 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan M4
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-191 M4
(Continue

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-192 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response to Letter M: Kate McKenna, Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCo)
Response M-1: This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. No further response is warranted.

Response M-2: The commentor states:
“1. Annexation of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz Properties within the City’s Sphere of Influence If the City approves the CASP, LAFCO anticipates that, in the future, the City may request annexation of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz Properties from LAFCO. If this occurs, as a CEQA Responsible Agency, LAFCO would plan to use the City’s plan-level CASP Draft EIR and future project-level CEQA document prepared by the City.

We appreciate that the Draft EIR references LAFCO’s October 9, 2017 comment letter on the Salinas CASP Notice of Preparation. LAFCO has reattached this letter for reference.

In our review of the Draft EIR, LAFCO Housing and Jobs Policy is described on page 3.8-7.

However, in our review, the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of the CASP’s conformance to the full range of LAFCO’s adopted policies and related State laws as requested in our October 9, 2017 letter. We ask that you respond to this request to the extent possible.

Inclusion of this information will help ensure that the Commission will have adequate information to act in its role as a CEQA Responsible Agency should a future annexation proposal be submitted to LAFCO. LAFCO’s adopted policies are available on LAFCO’s web site: http://www.monterey.lafco.ca.gov/”
Based on this comment, the City has updated the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the Specific Plan’s conformance to the relevant LAFCO’s adopted policies and State laws as requested in our October 9, 2017 letter.

Based on this comment, we have updated page 3.8-19 of the Draft EIR as follows, which is also noted in Section 3.0 (Errata) of the Final EIR (with underline for new text, strike out for deleted text):

The construction of new developments within the Specific Plan Area would increase temporary construction jobs in the area. As buildout of the project is expected to occur gradually in response to market demand, construction related employment would be similarly dispersed over time. Local construction companies are likely to find ample pools of employable personnel in the Salinas area, based on the current and projected employment trends. Due to the fact there is currently a surplus of unemployed workforce within the City, it is likely that area residents would fill the majority of these temporary construction positions.

CONFORMANCE TO LAFCO’S ADOPTED POLICIES AND STATE LAWS
LAFCO maintains a variety of adopted policies relating to spheres of influence and changes of organization and reorganization. LAFCO has requested an analysis of the conformance of COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-193 the project to related LAFCO laws and policies, as they relate to annexations of unincorporated areas (such as housing and jobs policies). The following discussion provides a plan-level analysis of the relevant LAFCO policies that relate to the environment (it should be noted that a Plan-level review only provides for a limited conformance analysis; further detailed analysis would be provided to LAFCO upon a potential request at a future date request to consider approval of the annexation of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties).

TABLE 3.8-3: PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO LAFCO’S ADOPTED LAWS AND POLICIES LAFCO Law/Policy Analysis of Project Conformance
Preservation of Open-Space and Agricultural Lands
Policy:

It is the policy of LAFCO that, consistent with section 56300 (a) of the Act, applications or proposals for a change in organization or reorganization, or for the establishment or any change to a Sphere of Influence or urban service area (hereinafter, “Proposal” or “Proposals”), shall provide for planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space and agricultural lands within those patterns. To implement this policy, it is the further policy of LAFCO that:

1. A Proposal must discuss how it balances the state
interest in the preservation of open space and
prime agricultural lands against the need for
orderly development.(Government Code section
56001.) Proposals that fail to discuss this balance,
in the opinion of the executive officer, will be
deemed incomplete. Proposals may be denied if
they fail to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
LAFCO that the need for orderly development is
balanced against the preservation of open space
and prime agricultural lands.

2. A Proposal must discuss its effect on maintaining
the physical and economic integrity of
agricultural lands. (Government Code section
56668 (a).) Proposals that fail to discuss their
effect, in the opinion of the executive officer, will
be deemed incomplete. Proposals may be denied if
they fail to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
LAFCO that the physical and economic integrity of
agricultural lands is maintained.

3. A Proposal must discuss whether it could
reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or
lead to the conversion of existing open-space land
to uses other than open-space uses. (Government
Code section 56377.) Proposals that fail to discuss
potential conversion, in the opinion of the
executive officer, will be deemed incomplete.

Proposals may be denied if they fail to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of LAFCO that: a)
they guide development or use of land for other
than open-space uses away from existing prime
agricultural lands in open-space use and toward
areas containing nonprime agricultural lands
(Government Code section 56377 (a)); and b)
development of existing vacant or nonprime
agricultural lands for urban uses within the
existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within
the Sphere of Influence of a local agency will
Consistent: The proposed project would
be consistent with this policy. Specifically,
the potential annexation of the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties are
consistent with the land uses and densities
in the North of Boronda Future Growth
Area (FGA) as established by the Salinas
General Plan, for which an EIR was
certified [Final Environmental Impact
Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton
Bridges Associates 2002) and Final
Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan
Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM
2007)].

The annexation of these properties would
provide further residential and
commercial development to an area that
has been considered for development for
over twenty years, and has been designed
as part of the Specific Plan with New
Urbanism principles, walkability, and
efficient urban development patterns, as
described in Section 2:0 Project
Description of this Draft EIR.

The physical and economic integrity of the
adjacent and other nearby agricultural
lands would be maintained with the
potential annexation of the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties.

Potential annexation of the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties would
increase the amount of publically
available open space, as parks planned for
these properties would provide open
space land uses that do not currently exist.

In addition, the potential annexation and
development of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz
properties is consistent with the land uses
and densities in the North of Boronda
Future Growth Area (FGA) as established
by the Salinas General Plan, for which an
EIR was certified [Final Environmental
Impact Report, Salinas General Plan
(Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and
Final Supplemental for the Salinas General

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-194 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan occur prior to the development of existing openspace lands for non-open-space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local
agency or outside of the existing Sphere of
Influence of the local agency (Government Code
section 56377 (b)).

4. A Proposal must, if applicable, provide for prezoning (Government Code section 56375 (a)), and must demonstrate that it is consistent with the
General Plans and Specific Plans of the existing
local agency and any immediately adjacent local
agency (Government Code sections 56375 (a) and
56668 (g)). Proposals may be denied if they are
not consistent with such plans, or, if not prezoned, if the Proposal does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of LAFCO that the existing
development entitlements are consistent with the
local agency’s plans.

Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM
2007)].

Appropriate zoning has been provided for
the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties, in
conformance with the Central Area
Specific Plan, and consistent with the land
uses and densities in the North of Boronda
Future Growth Area (FGA) as established
by the Salinas General Plan.

Housing and Jobs Policy:

It is the policy of LAFCO that, consistent with section 56300 (a) of the Act, Proposals must demonstrate through both quantitative and qualitative methods the relationship
between the Proposal and the surplus or deficiency of local and county-wide housing supply and demand, and
employment availability and creation. Additionally, the Proposal must demonstrate how its pattern of land use and transportation complements local and regional objectives and goals for the improvement of air quality and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and local vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These factors and their impacts, if any, shall be considered by the Commission in acting upon the Proposal.

Consistent: Potential annexation of the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties would add
to local and county-wide housing supply
that is currently at an enormous deficit.

Moreover, at the State level, the
Legislature has recently found that “[t]he
lack of housing … is a critical problem that
threatens the economic, environmental,
and social quality of life in California.”
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a).) The
Central Area Specific Plan has been long in
coming, and reflects City and County
growth management decisions made long
ago. (See Chapter 2, Project Description, §

2.2, Project Goals and Objectives.).

Moreover, the project would generate
employment growth through the
commercial development throughout the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties.

The annexation of these properties would
develop an area that has been considered
for development for over twenty years,
and has been designed as part of the
Specific Plan with New Urbanism
principles, walkability, and efficient
urban development patterns, as
described in Section 2:0 Project
Description of this Draft EIR. This
approach to planning complements the
local and regional objectives and goals for
the improvement of air quality and
reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and local vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). See the mitigation measures
provided throughout Section 3.1: Air
Quality; Section 3.4: GHG, Climate Change
and Energy, and Section 3.10:

Transportation and Circulation for
mitigation measures that would further
these goals and objectives.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-195 SOURCE: LAFCO OF MONTEREY COUNTY, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (AS ADOPTED BY THE LAFC) OF MONTEREY COUNTY ON FEBRUARY 24, 2020)
It is noted that any future annexation of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties would require an evaluation of consistency with LAFCO policies, including those policies that are not specifically environmental topics. No further response is required.

Response M-3: The commentor states:
“2. Conformance to the Adopted 2006 Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Similarly, in our October 9, 2017 letter, we requested that you include an analysis of the CASP’s consistency with the adopted 2006 City-County MOU. In our review of the Draft EIR, we did not find that this analysis was included. We also ask that you address this request to the extent possible.

We appreciate this opportunity to review the Draft EIR. Please continue to keep us informed throughout your process. City staff and consultants are welcome to contact LAFCO staff if you have any questions. We would be happy to meet with you and your staff for more detailed discussions.”
Based on this comment, the City has updated the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the Specific Plan’s consistency with the adopted 2006 City-County MOU, as requested in our October 9, 2017 letter.

CONFORMANCE TO THE ADOPTED 2006 GREATER SALINAS AREA OF MEMORANDUM

UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
The following Table provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the adopted 2006 City-County Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The intent of the MOU was in part to preserve agricultural lands within Monterey County, provide future growth areas for Salinas and offer adequate financing for services and facilities for the City and the County’s Greater Salinas Area Plan territory.

TABLE 3.8-4: PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO THE 2006 CITY-COUNTY MOU MOU Agreements Analysis of Project
Conformance
City Growth:

1. City and County agree that the future growth direction of the City shall be to the north and east of the current City limits, except as otherwise provided in this MOU.

2. County supports the City’s 2005 Preliminary Sphere of Influence/Annexation Proposal to LAFCO to the north and east of the City’s existing City Limits (Exhibit A).

3. County supports the City’s 2005 Preliminary Sphere of Consistent: The
proposed project
(including the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz
properties) is consistent
with each of the relevant
provisions, as follows:

Provision 1: The project

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-196 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Influence/Annexation Proposal to LAFCO to the south of the City’s existing City Limits (Exhibit A) for the exclusive purpose of agricultural processing and processing capacity (Fresh Express). County further supports future City Sphere of Influence/Annexation proposals to the south of the City’s existing City Limit for the exclusive purpose of agricultural processing capacity (Unikool), subject to the establishment of appropriate agricultural conservation easements

4. City and County agree to the creation and implementation of agricultural conservation easements in the unincorporated areas to the west and south of the City’s Sphere of Influence insofar as the easements are consistent with the adopted General Plans of the two jurisdictions.

5. City and County agree to work cooperatively and in concert with the affected property owners to annex developed unincorporated areas (e.g.

Bolsa Knolls) adjacent to or within the City’s Sphere of Influence as shown in Exhibit A and to transfer existing County sanitation facilities (e.g. Boronda) upon future City annexation that support these areas subject to the property owners paying any required sanitation system connection fees established by MRWPCA. It is anticipated that an initial effort consistent with this annexation commitment shall be cooperation by all parties to consider and facilitate the proposed Chapin Rogge annexation application insofar as the annexation is consistent with the provisions of LAFCO.

6. City and County agree that developments within the 2005 Preliminary Sphere of Influence/Annexation Proposal shall only occur after annexation to the City and that the City shall consult with the County in the planning process. City and County also agree that the developments within the area designated by the County General Plan as the Greater Salinas Planning Area shall only occur after consultation with the City in the Planning process.

7. City and County agree that the County shall not process any proposals for development in areas contiguous (immediately adjacent) to the City’s City Limit if those proposals would require either or both a County General Plan amendment or rezoning. Proposals for development requiring a General Plan amendment or a rezoning shall be referred to the City for consideration and possible annexation to the City.

8. City and County agree to work cooperatively and expeditiously in annexation matters consistent with this agreement.

9. City and County agree to support fees and taxes needed to mitigate the collective impact of new and existing development on the regional transportation system to the extent that the fees and taxes reflect the overall financing program adopted by the TAMC.

10. City and County agree that County will develop a County-wide Traffic Impact fee program for the improvement of major County roads in accordance with the County’s adopted General Plan. The County fee program will be developed in consultation with TAMC and Monterey County cities. It is recognized that there will be development within the City of Salinas related to the anticipated annexation of land to the north and east of the existing City Limits, and it is the desire of both jurisdictions that the County not rely on the imposition of an ad hoc traffic fee on City development. Therefore the development of the Traffic Impact fee for the Salinas Area, as shown in Exhibit B, will be a priority and a nexus study and hearing process should be completed within 18 months of the adoption of the 2006 County General Plan. The County Traffic Impact Fee will be imposed on development in affected cities and unincorporated areas.

11. City and County agree to work cooperatively on establishing the alignment, phasing and financing of the regional roadway facility commonly referred to as Westside Bypass and will expedite the completion of a Project Study Report for this future roadway. City and County agree that the ultimate alignment of the future Westside Bypass shall establish the boundary for the City. It is the intent of both parties development is to the
north of the previous and
current City limits. The
project would not conflict
with this provision.

Provision 2: The project
development is to the
north of the previous and
current City limits.

Provision 3: Not
applicable.

Provision 4: Not
applicable.

Provision 5: The project,
inclusive of the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz
properties, would not
conflict with this
provision.

Provision 6: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 7: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 8: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 9: The project
would not conflict with
this provision. TAMC fees
are identified in Section

3.10: Transportation and
Circulation of this Draft
EIR.

Provision 10: The project
would not conflict with
this provision. The
project will be applicable
traffic fees. See Section

3.10: Transportation and
Circulation of this Draft
EIR.

Provision 11: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 2.0-197 to minimize the impact on agricultural land in establishing the Westside Bypass alignment so that the ultimate alignment shall not result in the development of acres of agricultural land in excess of that anticipated by the Westside Bypass alignment as shown in the City of Salians 2002 adopted General Plan (Exhibit C).

12. City and County agree that future development between the area west of Davis Road and the future Westside Bypass, excluding the Boronda Redevelopment Project Area, shall be limited to expansion of the City’ retail sale capacity and shall take place after annexation.

13. City and County agree to work cooperatively to address the collective impact of current and anticipated land uses in the reclamation Ditch Watershed Area. There is a recognition that a comprehensive financing program is needed that includes grants, benefits assessments, appropriate development impact fees, and special taxes required to address current and anticipated impacts. The County, in consultation with the City, should complete a nexus study and hearing process, assessing benefit of current and existing land uses, withn 36 months of adoption of this MOU. The adopted impact fee will be imposed on current and existing land uses in both the City and unincorporated areas.

Provision 12: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 13: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Boronda Redevelopment Project Area:

14. City and County agree that in the undeveloped southern portion of the Boronda Redevelopment Project Area (Exhibit D), the County shall take the lead in the planning, review, and approval process subject to concurrent City review so that the final approved project is consistent with existing City development standards. City recognizes the County’s desire and intent to assure development that is consistent with commitments made to the Boronda community regarding required amendments to the current
adopted Boronda Community Plan and the anticipated
development is assumed to provide financial benefit (i.e. tax increment) to the Boronda Development Area. City and County will work cooperatively to assure that those commitments will result from and through the final approvals for development and annexation to the City of Salinas. City and County further agree that there will be no final development approvals prior to completion of all requirements (including LAFCO approval) for annexation of the subject area to the City of Salinas.

15. City and County agree that property tax generated within the Boronda Redevelopment Area shall continue to accrue to the Boronda Redevelopment Area for implementation of the current (January 1, 2006) adopted Redevelopment Area. Upon completion of the aforementioned Plan, the former Redevelopment Property tax increment shall be allocated between the City and County on a 50/50 basis.

Provision 14: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 15: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Affordable Housing:

16. City and County agree to support each other’s efforts to construct affordable housing throughout the County necessary to achieve the Fair Share Housing Allocation as approved by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)

17. City and County mutually agree that neither will pursue future development related litigation against the other insofar as the subject development is consistent with this agreement.

Provision 16: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 17: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

SOURCE: GREATER SALINAS AREA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, 2006 No further response is required.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-198 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Response M-4: This comment represents an appendix to the comment letter, providing the comments originally included in LAFCo’s comment on the project Notice of Preparation (NOP) in 2017. No further response is required.

ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-1 Revisions made to the Draft EIR are identified below. None of the revisions identify new significant environmental impacts, nor does any of the revisions result in substantive changes to the Draft EIR.

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
SECTION 0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-9:

TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC

PROPOSED
PROJECT1

NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

LAND AREA

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED

RESIDENTIAL

INTENSITY/DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
SMALLERSCALE

PROJECT

ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.1 - AIR QUALITY (AQ)
AQ Impact

3.1-1
LS Equal Equal Greater Greater
AQ Impact

3.1-2 SU Less EqualSlightly Less Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-3
LS/MM Less EqualSlightly
Less Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-4
LS/MM Less EqualSlightly
Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-5
LS/MM Slightly
Less
EqualSlightly
Greater Slightly Less Slightly Less
AQ Impact

3.1-6 LS Slightly Greater Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less AQ Impact

3.1-7
CC & SU Slightly
Less Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less
Section 3.12 – Biological Resources (BIO)
BIO Impact

3.2-1
LS Less Slightly Less Equal Slightly
Less
BIO Impact

3.2-2
LS/MMSU Less Slightly Less Equal Slightly
Less
Pages ES-21 through ES-22 of the Draft EIR is amened as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project applicant, assisted by a qualified biologist, shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals and authorizations regarding CTS. It is anticipated that the applicant would need to coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW on any additional survey needs, beyond the surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already been performed on this site for this species, during the consultation process. The surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already been performed, in addition to any additional survey needs, will inform what, if any, take authorization is required from CDFW to comply with CESA. Consultation with CDFW and the USFWS shall be conducted

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan well in advance of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities.

The regulatory approvals are This is anticipated to include the need to submit an application for incidental take to both the USFWS (Section 7 Consultation) and CDFW (2081 incidental take permit).

The project applicant’s qualified biologist shall report the conclusions reached through such consultation to the City’s Community Development Director. If either USFWS or CDFW determines that an incidental take permit is required, the project applicant shall obtain such a permit before engaging in any grading or other site-treatment activities in areas deemed to be viable CTS habitat.

It is anticipated that compensatory mitigation will be necessary for the loss of aquatic habitat associated with the 0.25-acre agricultural basin located on the east side of Natividad Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of East Boronda Road. At a minimum, the restoration and habitat creation of up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres along Natividad Creek (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project) shall include ponded/basin areas that provide aquatic breeding habitat opportunities for CTS within the Specific Plan Area. The required amount of ponded/basin areas shall not be less than the 0.25 acres which is equivalent to the anticipated habitat loss, but the final calculation of aquatic habitat needed to compensate for that loss shall be determined by the USFWS and/or CDFW through the permit process.

Additionally, the replacement aquatic habitat shall be designed with similar characteristics as the known 0.25-acre breeding pond including depths of at least five feet, and establishment of submergent and emergent vegetation around the perimeter of the pond/basin. All submergent and emergent vegetation around the pond/basin shall be from mature plantings to ensure that significant vegetation is established in the first year (i.e. no seeding or hydroseeding).

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to California tiger salamander to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with all Avoidance and Minimization Measures imposed by the USFWS and CDFW during Construction Activities. Examples of standard avoidance and minimization measures include:
1) conducting environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) having a biologist with an incidental take permit (ITP) scientific collecting permit for CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with an ITP scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CTS migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CTS found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report. Any disturbance/decommissioning of the basin that is a known breeding site, shall be performed under the direction of the USFWS and/or CDFW. The decommissioning of this basin shall be performed during the non-breeding season.

In addition, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization would be required prior to initiating grounddisturbing activities to comply with CESA. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-3 by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b). In the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Plan Area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.

Page ES-31 and ES-32 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the approval of the tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project applicant shall prepare a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) aimed at achieving specific performance standards. The GGRP may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and shall include the following:
1) The GGRP shall, if feasible, achieve a per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050.
2) Calculation of GHG emissions projection using an acceptable modeling tool such as the most recent version of CalEEMod.

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan the project applicant shall include substantial evidence in the GGRP to this effect. The GGRP shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salinas Community Development Department prior to approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GGRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to meet the thresholds of significance. In making this determination, the Community Development Department shall consider the feasibility of imposing additional measures, including requiring the applicant to purchase any additional qualifying carbon offsets that might be available in the marketplace or through development of a local or regional program that could produce additional qualifying offsets. “Feasibility” in this context shall focus on the technical viability and overall cost of such additional measures, including carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such measures (i) are technologically feasible, (ii) would substantially increase the cost of proposed housing, or (iii) would render the proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601. After the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GGRP shall be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. The Planning Commission shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a GGRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered.

Pages ES-33 and ES-35 (Tables ES-2):

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to:
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.
2) Investigate structures for asbestos-containing materials and lead. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a Cal-OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S. EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-5 comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. Any ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

Any load-bearing removal in the structures is defined as a demolition activity by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulation and District Rule 424. This activity must also be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.
3) The two known gasoline USTs located on APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and -011 and APN 153-091-001 shall require proper removal in accordance with Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development. Any unused fuel and oil ASTs and containers located in the vicinity of the agricultural buildings and equipment yards shall be properly removed and recycled or disposed of. Any associated petroleum hydrocarbon subsurface impacts associated with the USTs, ASTs and fuel and oil containers/storage areas shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 4) Investigation and reporting for Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) related soil impacts (associated with polemounted transformers) at the fenced former substation located on the southern portion of APN 211-013-012 shall be required prior to disturbance of the area. Soil sampling and analytical testing shall be required to determine if subsurface impacts require further assessment or remediation prior to planned development. If the investigation and analytical results of the soil samples determines the soils contain threshold levels of PCBs, materials must be disposed of as a hazardous waste and shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

Observations and a screening level Phase II ESA soil sampling and analytical testing shall be completed for APNs 211- 013-003, -007, -010 and -011 prior to any development approvals. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

SECTION 3.1 AIR QUALITY
Pages 3.1-27 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Pages 3.1-44 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

CONCLUSION
The increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Construction emissions would be temporary in nature, while the operational activities of a project would be most likely to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, since ongoing, chronic, and lifetime exposure to criteria pollutants are key in the level of health impact. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the health-based NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison the Monterey County as a whole. For these reasons, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-210, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.

Pages 3.1-46 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-110.

SECTION 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Pages 3.2-40 and 3.2-41 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

The regulatory approvals are This is anticipated to include the need to submit an application for incidental take to both the USFWS (Section 7 Consultation) and CDFW (2081 incidental take permit).

It is anticipated that compensatory mitigation will be necessary for the loss of aquatic habitat associated with the 0.25-acre agricultural basin located on the east side of Natividad Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of East Boronda Road. At a minimum, the restoration and habitat creation of up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres along Natividad Creek (net of any ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-7 recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project) shall include ponded/basin areas that provide aquatic breeding habitat opportunities for CTS within the Specific Plan Area. The required amount of ponded/basin areas shall not be less than the 0.25 acres which is equivalent to the anticipated habitat loss, but the final calculation of aquatic habitat needed to compensate for that loss shall be determined by the USFWS and/or CDFW through the permit process.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to California tiger salamander to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with all Avoidance and Minimization Measures imposed by the USFWS and CDFW during Construction Activities. Examples of standard avoidance and minimization measures include:
1) conducting environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) having a biologist with an incidental take permit (ITP) scientific collecting permit for CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with an ITP scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CTS migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CTS found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report. Any disturbance/decommissioning of the basin that is a known breeding site, shall be performed under the direction of the USFWS and/or CDFW. The decommissioning of this basin shall be performed during the non-breeding season.

In addition, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization would be required prior to initiating grounddisturbing activities to comply with CESA. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b). In the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Plan Area and obtain an ITP from CDFW.

SECTION 3.4 GHG, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
Pages 3.4-40 and 3.4-41 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3) The GGRP shall, if feasible, achieve a per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by year 2050.
4) Calculation of GHG emissions projection using an acceptable modeling tool such as the most recent version of CalEEMod.

If the project applicant concludes that sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance (i.e., per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2050), the project applicant shall include substantial evidence in the GGRP to this effect. The GGRP shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salinas Community Development Department prior to approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GGRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to meet the thresholds of significance. In making this determination, the Community Development Department shall consider the feasibility of imposing additional measures, including ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-9 requiring the applicant to purchase any additional qualifying carbon offsets that might be available in the marketplace or through development of a local or regional program that could produce additional qualifying offsets. “Feasibility” in this context shall focus on the technical viability and overall cost of such additional measures, including carbon offsets, and, specifically, whether such measures (i) are technologically feasible, (ii) would substantially increase the cost of proposed housing, or (iii) would render the proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601. After the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GGRP shall be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. The Planning Commission shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a GGRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered.

SECTION 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Pages 3.5-20 and 3.5-21 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to:
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 2) Investigate structures for asbestos-containing materials and lead. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a Cal-OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S. EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. Any ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424.

Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Any load-bearing removal in the structures is defined as a demolition activity by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulation and District Rule 424. This activity must also be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work. 3) The two known gasoline USTs located on APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and -011 and APN 153- 091-001 shall require proper removal in accordance with Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development. Any unused fuel and oil ASTs and containers located in the vicinity of the agricultural buildings and equipment yards shall be properly removed and recycled or disposed of. Any associated petroleum hydrocarbon subsurface impacts associated with the USTs, ASTs and fuel and oil containers/storage areas shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. 4) Investigation and reporting for Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) related soil impacts (associated with pole-mounted transformers) at the fenced former substation located on the southern portion of APN 211-013-012 shall be required prior to disturbance of the area. Soil sampling and analytical testing shall be required to determine if subsurface impacts require further assessment or remediation prior to planned development. If the investigation and analytical results of the soil samples determines the soils contain threshold levels of PCBs, materials must be disposed of as a hazardous waste and shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

Observations and a screening level Phase II ESA soil sampling and analytical testing shall be completed for APNs 211-013-003, -007, -010, and -011 prior to any development approvals. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.

SECTION 3.8 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Page 3 ends

Salinas City CouncilAugust 6, 2024

Salinas City Council
August 6, 2024