Salinas City Council
August 6, 2024

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, ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-11 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 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)
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

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 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
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.
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
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)
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-13 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.

SOURCE: LAFCO OF MONTEREY COUNTY, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (AS ADOPTED BY THE LAFC) OF MONTEREY COUNTY ON FEBRUARY 24, 2020)
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 CityCounty 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 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 Consistent: The
proposed project
(including the
Settrini/Garcia/Igaz
properties) is consistent
with each of the relevant
provisions, as follows:

Provision 1: The project
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

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 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 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.
would not conflict with
this provision.

Provision 7: 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.

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 Provision 14: The project
would not conflict with
this provision.

ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-15 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 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

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan SECTION 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES
Pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-26 of the Draft EIR is amended as follows:

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
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-17 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

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan TABLE 3.9-12: PROJECTED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA STUDENT GENERATION ESTIMATES (WITH BOUNDARY

CHANGE)
SOURCE 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.1 CHAPTER 4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

• Impact 3.1-2: Project operation has the potential to cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Impact 3.1-7: Cumulative impact on the region’s air quality. • Impact 3.2-2: Impact on endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS - Reptile and Amphibian.
1 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
ERRATA 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 3.0-19 • Impact 3.2-9: The proposed project has the potential to interfere with the movement of native fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Impact 3.2-12: Cumulative loss of biological resources including habitats and special status species.
• Impact 3.4-1: Potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Impact 3.4-4: Cumulative Impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions.
• Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project has the potential to increase traffic noise levels at existing receptors.
• Impact 3.7-8: Cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to increased noise resulting from cumulative development.
• Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project may require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. • Impact 3.9-3: Project implementation may result in in the need for the construction of new schools, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation may result in effects on parks, or has the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.9-5: Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. • Impact 3.9-6: Under cumulative conditions the proposed project may result in effects on public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.

CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

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.

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

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas 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

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

4.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-1 This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Project (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR, some of which were revised after the Draft EIR were prepared. These revisions are shown in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR. All revisions to mitigation measures that were necessary as a result of responding to public comments and incorporating staff-initiated revisions have been incorporated into this FMMRP. The FMMRP also includes mitigation measures which are required by the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW, 2007).

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.

The City of Salinas will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the Project.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the Project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-3 TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.1-2: Project operation
has the potential to cause a
violation of an air quality
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Prior to approval of tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the following features into project plans and specifications, as directed by the City of Salinas:
• Provide traffic calming measures (such as speed bumps, traffic circles, and/or other standard measures) on at least 50% of streets and intersections within the Plan Area;
• Require the parking lots or parking structures for new commercial, office, retail, and multifamily development to provide enough parking spaces for carpools and vanpools to accommodate reasonably foreseeable consumer demand at the time of the approval of such development, consistent with State of California laws and policies intended to encourage the use of carpools and vanpools;
• Require the use of low-VOC paint for all new building architectural coatings within the Plan Area, consistent with or better than, what is required by the City’s Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to approval of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate effective methods to facilitate the use of cleaner alternative fuel (e.g., electric vehicles, carpooling, etc.) within the Plan Area. Effective methods may include the installation of alternative fuel (e.g. electric) charging stations at locations spaced throughout the Plan Area including but not limited to those specified in this Draft EIR, as applicable, consistent with or better than what is required by the City’s Municipal Code and Specific Plan. Additionally, this can be achieved by providing preferential parking for alternatively-powered vehicles, including electric cars, and/or by providing carpool/vanpool parking spaces.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Prior to approval of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the use of alternative City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Prior to
approval of
tentative maps,
conditional use
permits or site
plan review
Prior to
approval of
development
review
permit(s)
Prior to

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
energy for the residential and mixed use/commercial developments, including by implementing alternative energy (e.g. PV solar) building requirements, consistent with or better than, what is required by the City’s Municipal Code and State requirements (e.g. the 2019 California Solar Mandate). Project applicant(s) shall also ensure that pre-installed electrical hookups and/or charging stations, as applicable, are incorporated into all project plans and specifications.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall provide plans that demonstrate that low-flow (high-efficiency) indoor water fixtures will be installed throughout the Plan Area, including for bathroom and kitchen faucets, toilet fixtures, and showers, in both residential and non-residential buildings, in compliance with or better than the standards required within the most recent version of the California Green Building Standards Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall provide plans that demonstrate that water-efficient irrigation systems will be installed throughout the Plan Area, consistent with or better than the requirements contained within the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance and the Salinas Zoning Code Landscaping and Irrigation requirements.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-6: Prior to approval of improvement plans or development review permits, as applicable, the project applicant(s) shall ensure that pedestrian/bicycle facilities (e.g. pedestrian paths, outdoor bike racks, etc.) are provided within the Specific Plan Area, in coordination with and subject to approval by the City of Salinas. The project proponent shall also provide bicycling parking near the entrance to commercial establishments within the Specific Plan Area, consistent with or better than the requirements contained within the City’s Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-7: Prior to the issuance of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the following additional Plan Area requirements, as applicable:
• Install secured bicycle storage facilities (bike lockers, cages, interior Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
approval of
development
review
permit(s)
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans or
development
review permits,
as applicable
Prior to
approval of
development
review
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
space, or similar as approved by the City Engineer) at all commercial and public facilities with 50 employees or more;
• Incorporate park-and-ride lots.
• Install 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); and • Install publicly-available dual post Level 2 charge stations within the VC or NG zones, and/or other zones as deemed acceptable by the City of Salinas. (Note: The 'level' of the charging station refers to the voltage that the electric vehicle charger uses. Level 1 charging is your typical traditional home outlet, while level 2 is a 240 Volt Portable Cordset or Wall-mounted Charging Station (2-10 hours charging).

Mitigation Measure 3.1-8: Prior to the approval of individual phases (i.e. tentative maps, site plan review, etc.), the project applicant(s) shall 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 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. Example projects that could be included in the offsite mitigation program may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Replace existing agricultural combustion-based generators/pumps with electric agricultural water pumps (in place of
generators/pumps;
• Replace combustion school buses with electric school buses within the local community;
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
permit(s)
Prior to
approval of
individual
phases (i.e.
tentative maps,
site plan
review, etc.)

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
• Install adaptive traffic control systems;
Install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.

Impact 3.1-3: Project
construction has the potential to
cause a violation of an air quality
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation
Mitigation Measure 3.1-9: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review and approval by the City. In the event that ground-disturbance exceeds 2.2 acres per day for initial site preparation activities that involve extensive earthmoving activities (e.g., grubbing, excavation, rough grading), and 8.1 acres per day for activities that involve minimal earth-moving (e.g., finish grading), the required grading plans shall include the following measures to be implemented as needed to prevent visible dust emissions:
• Water all active construction sites to prevent visible dust emissions.

Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure;
• Prohibit grading and earthmoving activities, and cover stock piles, during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);
• Limit vehicle speed on construction sites to 15 mph.
• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days);
• Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; • Maintain at least 1-foot of freeboard in each haul truck; • Provide windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects where adjacent to open land;
• Cover inactive storage piles;
• Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; and/or
• Post a publicly visible sign written in English and Spanish which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall be visible to City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Monterey Bay
Air Resources
District
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). The sign shall be in accordance with MBARD and/or City requirements, as applicable • Use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to EPA’s second or first-most stringent Tier emission standards (e.g. Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards in 2019), or better; and/or
• Further, where reasonably feasible, construction equipment should include the use of alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), propane, electricity or biodiesel.

Impact 3.1-5: The proposed
project has the potential for
public exposure to toxic air
contaminants
Mitigation Measure 3.1-10: Prior to issuance of building permits or commencing operation of any commercial building/use that would emit toxic air contaminants (such as gas stations or dry cleaning operations), the project applicant shall, at a minimum, perform prioritization screening in accordance with the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990) and the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act. The prioritization screening shall be performed in accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Program guidance. The prioritization screening shall also be conducted consistent with the guidance provided by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, which will be responsible for determining which facilities based on their prioritization screening score, must perform a health risk assessment. In determining the need to prepare a health risk assessment, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District considers the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors specific to the facility that indicate that it may pose a significant health risk.

If a health risk assessment is warranted for a facility based on its prioritization score, the project applicant shall assess the facilities for the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the applicable thresholds (utilizing an air dispersion modelling program such as AERMOD). As of the time of this writing, the commonly accepted threshold for cancer risk is 10 in a million for carcinogens, and the reference exposure level for non-carcinogens (HI = 1). Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) have the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Monterey Bay
Air Resources
District
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits or
commencing
operation of
any commercial
building/use
that would emit
toxic air
contaminants
(such as gas
stations or dry
cleaning
operations)

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
levels that would be considered significant. Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) must incorporate mitigation to reduce the risks from emission of toxic air contaminants to an acceptable level (i.e., to a level that does not exceed the applicable threshold[s]). Potential mitigation includes:
reducing the size of the facility area; rearranging the site to reduce the potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors; and utilizing products that reduce the level of toxic air contaminants, or removal of such products from the operational phase of the project.

Impact 3.1-7: Cumulative impact
on the region’s air quality
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10. See Mitigation Measures 3.1-1
through 3.1-8
See Mitigation
Measures 3.1-1
through 3.1-8

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-2: The proposed
project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a
substantial adverse effect
through habitat modifications or
reductions, cause populations to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a
community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict
the range of, an endangered, rare
or threatened species, including
those considered candidate,
sensitive, or special status in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS - Reptile and Amphibian
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 grounddisturbing activities.

The regulatory approvals are 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 siteCity of Salinas Community
Development
Department
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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).

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) for CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Qualified
Biologist
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: 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 CRLF. 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 CRLF habitat.

The Gabilan and Natividad Creek are CRLF habitat and both are anticipated to be expanded through habitat creation/restoration. The restoration and habitat creation include up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project) along Natividad Creek. Given that the creation/restoration is an Department
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Qualified
Biologist
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Qualified
Biologist
City of Salinas
Community
building
permits
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits
Prior to
issuance of
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
expansion of habitat beyond what exists presently, it is anticipated that there would be a net increase in CRLF habitat. There is, however, the potential for temporary impacts to CRLF during the creation/restoration effort. The final restoration and habitat creation design shall be subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF 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 a scientific collecting permit for CRLF 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 a scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CRLF migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CRLF found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-5: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to WPT to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures: 1) conduct environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) conduct western pond turtle surveys within creek corridors, ponded/basin areas, and irrigation ditches by a qualified biologist, 3) survey upland areas within 0.5 miles of the aquatic features for evidence of nests as well as individual turtles, 4) make a reasonable effort to capture and relocate as many western pond turtles as possible to minimize take, 5) if a nest is observed, move eggs to a suitable location or facility for incubation, and release hatchlings into the creek corridor the following autumn, 6) design habitat elements within the creek corridor to benefit western pond turtle (i.e. include logs or rafts for emergent basking sites, and upland areas adjacent to ponds in a relatively open condition), and 7) post construction report. All survey and/or handling of WPT shall be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with the Development
Department
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Qualified
Biologist
grading and/or
building
permits

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
CDFW.

Impact 3.2-3: The proposed
project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a
substantial adverse effect
through habitat modifications or
reductions, cause populations to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a
community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict
the range of, an endangered, rare
or threatened species, including
those considered candidate,
sensitive, or special status in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS - Birds
Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Building and grading permits and plans issued for development in the project area shall note the following: If construction activities occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 – September 15) then the project proponent shall conduct pre-construction surveys to prevent impacts to nesting birds. No more than 15 days prior to the start of construction a bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify any active nests within the Specific Plan Area, and shall be submitted to the City. If construction stops for a period of 15 days or more during the avian breeding season than an additional bird survey shall be conducted. The biologist will conduct a survey in the Specific Plan Area for all special-status birds protected by the federal and state ESA, MBTA and CFGC. The biologist shall map all nests that are within, and visible from, the Specific Plan Area. If nests are identified, the biologist shall map the location and establish a minimum 300-foot buffer zone around active nests. Construction activity shall be prohibited within the buffer zones until the young have fledged. Nests shall be monitored at least twice per week during the nesting season and a report submitted to the City and CDFW monthly.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
Biologist
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
In conjunction
with issuance
of building and
grading
permits and
plans
Impact 3.2-5: The proposed
project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a
substantial adverse effect
through habitat modifications or
reductions, cause populations to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a
community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict
the range of, an endangered, rare
or threatened species, including
those considered candidate,
sensitive, or special status in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or
Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Grading and/or building permits and plans issued for development in the project area shall note the following:
• Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat: Any vegetation/ground
disturbance to the Gabilan Creek associated with the crossings or restoration should be conducted when woodrats are least likely to breed in October through November. No more than 30 days prior to construction located within 50-feet of Gabilan Creek, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat middens. At the discretion of a qualified biologist, an exclusion buffer shall be established around any woodrat middens that can be avoided, and these exclusion zones shall be fenced as Environmentally Sensitive Areas to protect the nest. If a woodrat midden cannot be avoided, potential dismantling and relocation strategies shall be developed and presented to the City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
Biologist
In conjunction
with issuance
of building
and/or grading
permits and
plans
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
USFWS - Mammals City of Salinas Community Development Department by a qualified biologist for review and/or approval. Potential dismantling and relocation strategies may include hiring a qualified biologist to dismantle the middens by hand for relocation within the restored/created habitat along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, or outside of the project site as appropriate. If approved by the City, a qualified wildlife biologist may dismantle only middens within the project site that would be disturbed by construction activities. If young are encountered during dismantling of the midden, any removed material may be replaced and a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer would be established around the active midden. The buffer would remain until young are weaned and are able to disperse on their own accord (typically for a period of 14 days). All removed midden substrate would be collected and relocated to suitable woodland habitat outside of the project footprint. Appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., respirator, gloves, and Tyvek suit) shall be used while dismantling and relocating woodrat nest material to protect against disease carried by rodents (e.g. hantavirus).
• Bats: Fifteen days prior to construction activities within 200 feet of potential bat roosting habitat, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist familiar with bat biology to perform a preconstruction survey for roosting special-status bats, which shall be submitted to the City. The areas with potential bat roosting habitat include: 1) the three residential complexes located between Natividad Road and Gabilan Creek, 2) the outbuildings/structures located throughout the Specific Plan Area, and 3) Gabilan Creek.

The survey shall include a minimum of one daytime and one evening survey. The survey shall cover the trees, structures, and debris located within these complexes. If active roosting is observed, removal of the tree or building shall be avoided until the bats can be excluded. All active non-maternity roosting sites shall be fitted with passive exclusion devices, such as one-way flaps or doors, and all bats shall be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is confirmed that all bats have left the roost (minimum of five days), crews shall be allowed to continue work in the area. If a maternity roosting site is discovered, a minimum 50-foot buffer shall be established around

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
the roost. The project applicant shall consult with the qualified biologist in order to determine if a greater buffer is warranted based on the bat species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. The buffer shall stay in effect until all young are determined to be volant (i.e., able to fly and feed independently) by a qualified biologist. Once it is determined that all young are volant (generally by August 1st), passive exclusion devices shall be installed and all bats shall be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is determined by the qualified biologist that all bats have left the roost (minimum of five days), crews shall be allowed to work within the buffer zone. Project Improvement Plans will include this measure as a note in the plans.

Impact 3.2-7: The proposed
project has the potential to have
substantial adverse effect on
federally - or state- protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means
Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: Prior to grading/building permit issuance in an area that would disturb the Gabilan Creek, Natividad Creek (and its tributaries), the project applicant shall obtain jurisdictional determinations from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW for the creeks and ditches that are proposed to be disturbed. The creeks are confirmed jurisdictional and authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB-Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State and 401 certification, CDFW-1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) will be necessary. The irrigation ditches are anticipated to be exempt. If these regulatory agencies concur that these irrigation ditches are exempt, then no further mitigation is necessary for the irrigation ditches. If it is determined that these ditches are not exempt, authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB-Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State and 401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) will be necessary. At a minimum, the project applicant shall replace on a “no net loss” basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation or operations, although a higher mitigation measure may be required by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through their permitting processes. It is anticipated that the restoration of Gabilan and Natividad Creeks will result in up to 104 acres of wetland and riparian habitat creation (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project), which will serve as onsite mitigation; however, a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through the permitting processes conducted pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404, Fish and Game Code Section 1600, and State Water Board City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
Prior to grading
/ building
permit issuance
in an area that
would disturb
the Gabilan
Creek,
Natividad
Creek
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.3-1: Project
implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: In the event that evidence of archaeological or historical features or deposits (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters) are uncovered (discovered) during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in the area of the find until an appropriate avoidance or data recovery program can be developed and implemented by a qualified archaeologist. This archaeologist shall determine whether the uncovered deposits or features qualify as either “historical resources” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a), “unique archaeological resources” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, subdivision (g), or “tribal cultural resources,” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074. If historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or tribal cultural resources are present, the project proponent shall preserve any such resources in place if feasible as determined by the City Planner and/or implement any other feasible mitigation measures identified by the archaeologist and approve and imposed by the City. In assessing whether avoidance is feasible, the City Planner shall consider project design, logistics, and cost considerations. All costs associated with the City’s Planner’s determination of project design, logistics and cost considerations shall be borne by the developer/applicant.

Avoidance is infeasible where it would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures.

Recommended mitigation measures shall be reviewed by the City Planner and shall be approved if feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations and, if approved, shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City Planner. Data recovery, including photo documentation, excavation and recovery, laboratory analysis, etc., shall be an option if preservation in place is infeasible. Where resources have been determined to be “unique archaeological resources” but not “historical resources” or “tribal cultural resources,” the project proponent’s obligations shall be limited as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, subdivisions (d), (e), and (f). Grading/building permits and plans shall note this measure.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
Archaeologist
In the event
that evidence of
archaeological
or historical
features or
deposits (e.g.,
ceramic shard,
trash scatters,
lithic scatters)
are uncovered
(discovered)
during
excavation
and/or grading

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.3-2: Project
implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. See Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1
See Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1
Impact 3.3-3: Project
implementation may directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: If paleontological resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Salinas shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where the resource could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
Paleontologist
If
paleontological
resources are
discovered
during the
course of
construction
Impact 3.3-4: Project
implementation may disturb
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: If human remains are found during construction within the Specific Plan Area, or at off-site infrastructure improvement locations, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the area of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Monterey County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Monterey
County Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
If human
remains are
discovered
during the
course of
construction
within the
Specific Plan
Area
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-17

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Impact 3.3-5: Project
implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource
Implement mitigation measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. See Mitigation Measures 3.3-3
and 3.3-4
See Mitigation
Measures 3.3-3
and 3.3-4

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Impact 3.4-1: Potential to
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the approval of the tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, as applicable, 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) 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.

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 City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
approval of the
tentative maps
and
development
review permits

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 legislativelyadopted GHG reduction targets (e.g., the 2030 target set by SB 32), includes

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. See Mitigation
Measures 3.4-1
See Mitigation
Measures 3.4-1
Impact 3.4-4: Cumulative impact
on climate change from
increased project-related
greenhouse gas emission
See Mitigation
Measures 3.4-1
See Mitigation
Measures 3.4-1

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.5-1: Potential to be
located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment
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 City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits or
building
permits,
(including the
issuance of
demolition
permits for
agricultural
support
buildings) as
applicable
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, existing water wells within the grading area shall be destroyed under permit from the City of Salinas and/or the Monterey County Health Department, as applicable. Any destruction of these facilities shall be in accordance with the Monterey County Well Standards for Abandonment/Destruction. The project applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate destruction of City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Monterey
County Health
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Monterey
County Health
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
these facilities.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the water well or wells that will be providing water for the applicable portion of the Specific Plan Area, shall be constructed and tested for water quality under permit from the Monterey County Health Department. The project applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate construction and operation of these facilities.

Impact 3.5-2: Create a significant
hazard to school sites due to
siting or the placement of
infrastructure
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: The property line of all school sites (even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (o) of § 14010) shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements as identified in the California Code of Regulations Title 5, Article 2. School Sites § 14010, Standards for School Site Selection (c):
• 100 feet for power lines that are between 50 and 133 kV.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans for any
school site

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.6-1: The proposed
project has the potential to
violate water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements
during construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Salinas prior to submitting to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ).

The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed to be effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and shall not preclude the use of equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Salinas. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB or the City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
City of Salinas.

Impact 3.6-2: The proposed
project has the potential to
violate water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements
during operation
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department the project Improvement Plans. The Improvement Plans shall be consistent with the City’s Development Standards, Standard Plans, and current NPDES permit requirements at the time of permitting. The NPDES permit granted to the City of Salinas by the Central Coast RWQCB (RWQCB – Central Coast Region, 2019) requires the following:

I. Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs – Erosion control and sediment control BMPs shall be designed, installed, and maintained to reduce the discharge of pollutants from construction sites to the maximum extent practical (MEP) and protect water quality;
II. Erosion and sediment from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of erosion control (source control) and other sediment control BMPs; and
III. Soil Stabilization – Stabilization of disturbed areas shall, at a minimum, be initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating, or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased.

Additionally, the Improvement Plans shall be consistent with the requirements of the City’s most current Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The City of Salinas Stormwater Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects (City of Salinas, 2013) require the following practices:

I. Limit disturbance of creeks and natural drainage features and provide setbacks according to the City’s latest NPDES permit; II. Minimize compaction of highly permeable soils; and
III. Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation to the minimum needed to build the project and provide fire
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for water quality best management practices (BMPs) and water quality detention/retention basins designed to meet the applicable regulatory requirements and to reduce contaminant loadings to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.

The approved Stormwater Control Plans shall be submitted to the Central Coast RWQCB through SMARTS as part of the project’s SWPPP permit documents.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for operational water quality best management practices (BMPs) and water quality detention basins designed to prevent to the maximum extent practicable the creation of new sources of polluted runoff. Operational water quality BMPs may include extended detention basins, wet ponds/detention basins, porous pavement, inlet filters, vegetative BMPs, underground infiltration systems, vegetative swales, or storm drain stenciling and posting of signage. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a Hydrologic study as part of the Stormwater Control Plan to the Salinas Public Works Department detailed plans and calculations for supplemental retention and peak flow control.

BMPs will be designed to meet regulatory requirements and to reduce peak flows during storm events below peak flows under pre-project conditions. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.

City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.6-3: The proposed
project has the potential to
substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall site, and design and include an Operation and Maintenance Plan for stormwater retention/infiltration basins and infiltration promoting BMPs sufficient to assure that there is no reduction in groundwater recharge. In order to assure there is no reduction in recharge, the plan shall result in circumstances which maintain infiltration to support baseflow and interflow to wetlands and surface waters, and deep vertical infiltration to groundwater. The site, design, and installation shall be consistent with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The contents of the site, landscaping (ground cover, bushes and trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable), design, and installation shall be included in a Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan shall be reflected on the Improvement Plans and subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-7: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall site, design, and include an Operation and Maintenance Plan for post-construction BMPs and supplemental stormwater detention basins in accordance with City of Salinas stormwater development standards. Maintenance procedures (including frequency of procedure, cleaning schedules, applicant responsibility for each procedure, performance standards, or other means) and funding mechanisms shall be established for those facilities to assure adequate long-term performance and success in treating the water and controlling infiltration into the groundwater. The Improvement Plans and Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.

City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Impact 3.6-6: Place housing or
structures that would
impede/redirect flows within a
100-year, or 200-year flood
Mitigation Measure 3.6-8: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit an application for a letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F) to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and FEMA with pertinent information and studies for approval that indicates no City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-27

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map
building construction would take place within remapped FEMA flood zones AE and A and that no changes to the regulated floodway will result in an increase in the base flood elevation or impact the downstream waterways.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-9: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department detailed grading plans and calculations designed to place enough fill onto the shaded Zone X area as to raise the land surface elevation above the base flood elevation so that flooding hazards are minimized to a FEMA flood standard. The project applicant shall submit an application for a LOMR-F to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and FEMA with pertinent information for approval.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-10: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner, detailed plans, calculations, landscaping (and irrigation, as applicable) plans, and design basis reports for creek corridor restoration, including detention/retention/water quality basins, within the flood hazard extents identified as Zones A and AE that provide assurances that during large storm events, creek flows and sediment transport from upstream sources are not impeded at the same time as when the adjacent basins are at or near capacity. The design basis reports for creek corridor restoration shall also be submitted to the USACE, USFWS, and RWQCB and any required permitting processed prior to City approval. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-11: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan that provides sufficient supporting documentation and calculations to the Salinas Public Works Department to address sediment transport issues of finegrained materials from upstream and local sources that could clog City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
infiltration capacities and could fill required storage space within the stormwater basins at the downstream boundaries of the project area to the extent practicable.

The calculations to address these sediment transport issues may include:
• A streamflow and sediment transport (bedload and suspended sediment) data collection monitoring program that begins one- to two-years pre-construction and continues through a mandated postproject timeframe and would provide volumetric information for calculations related to the potential for sediment deposition. • Pre-project measurements could be used to estimate sediment loading, which could inform the design of mitigation measures and enable estimates of maintenance frequencies needed ensure ongoing efficacy of the measures. During project execution and after project completion, measurements of bedload and suspended sediment in the channel at the downstream boundary of the project could be used to verify performance of sediment management measures and avoidance of associated sediment transport impacts.
• The United States Geological Survey gage record on Gabilan Creek (#11152600) contains limited suspended sediment data that was collected in March and April of 2017. These data could be used to compare to and/or validate measurements obtained via field data collection.

Strategies and measures to address these sediment transport issues may include:
• Bioretention Basins: Bioretention basin features provide multiple water quality functions for stormwater systems, including performing as depositional areas for sediments that settle and get trapped in the bioretention media.

An operations and maintenance plan shall be used to address specific plans
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-29

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
maintenance requirements related to sediment accumulation, such that basin media remediation would take place when a threshold condition (such as a certain amount of sediment accumulation on the basin floor) is reached. For instance, if sediment deposition exceeds a depth of 2-inches, even a small patch, the sediment would require removal to keep the basin functioning properly.

Furthermore, the functional lifespan of bioretention media (mulch, soils, drain rock, underdrain) is generally about 15 years. Annual monitoring reports could be used to track basin performance under varying wet season conditions and used to guide media replacement timing.
• Treatment Wetlands: Treatment wetlands are designed to mimic the natural infiltration, nutrient cycling, habitat, and a myriad of other important ecological functions provided by natural wetlands.

Treatment wetlands could be constructed at storm drain outfall locations or adjacent to or off-channel from a creek channel.

Wetlands could vary between those that are highly designed and may need relatively high levels of maintenance to more naturally based designs that may need more limited maintenance, each with varying levels of treatment potential.

Treatment performance is a function of wetland to watershed ratio, wetland treatment design, area hydrology, hydraulic residence time, and source pollutants. The preferred residence time through wetlands varies based on vegetation type and quantity, water depth, temperature, and design flow rates. Having a lower design flow rate can result in longer hydraulic residence time, which is preferred particularly at the start of a rainy season, since the “first flush” volume of stormwater runoff will generally contain the highest concentrations of pollutants. Treatment wetland design generally considers dry season irrigation return flows and first flush principles. • Vegetated Banks/Riparian Corridor: Trees and other riparian corridor vegetation appropriate to the environment, such as willows, could

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
grow rapidly on channel banks and trap sediments, removing sediment from streamflows as well as from local surface runoff. • Floodplains: Floodplains provide one of the most important storage spaces for sediment as it moves discontinuously through a watershed. Naturally functioning floodplains generally extend laterally past the immediate riparian buffer zone into relatively flat areas. Floodplain access could be provided by bank and channel grading at specified design storm flows. The rate of sediment deposition on floodplains is largely dependent on the frequency of inundating flows, the suspended sediment loads in the river, available floodplain area, and presence of vegetation.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-12: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide an Operation and Maintenance Plan as part of the Stormwater Control Plan with sufficient supporting documentation and calculations for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department demonstrating that risks associated with reduction of infiltration capacity in the detention/retention/water quality basins shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-13: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with sufficient supporting documentation and calculations that the risks associated with basin embankment side slope failure because of the non-cohesive nature of Gabilan and Natividad Creek corridor sediments will be minimized to the extent practicable.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-14: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department such that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed by the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed and subsequently approve the operations, City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-31

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the project.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-15: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures such that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with embankment side slope failures are addressed by the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with embankment side slope failures are addressed and subsequently approve the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the project.

All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
NOISE
Impact 3.7-2: The proposed
project has the potential to
increase noise levels associated
with construction activities
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, plans shall note that construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Salinas Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, plans shall note that all equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers and in good working order. All stationary noise generating equipment (i.e. generators) shall be located at least 200 feet from a sensitive receptor. All construction staging areas shall be located at least 200 feet from a sensitive receptor.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
Impact 3.7-4: The proposed
project has the potential to
expose new sensitive receptors
to excessive transportation noise
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, the plans shall note the location, design, and construction details of the eight-foot to nine-foot tall sound walls and/or landscaped berm/wall combinations, as applicable, that will be constructed along the primary Specific Plan Area roadways, adjacent to proposed residential dwellings, in order to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards.

At the City’s discretion, wall heights which achieve the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard may be allowed. See the Draft EIR Table 3.7-14 for specific noise barrier/wall heights along each roadway.

Additionally, at the City’s discretion, alternative noise reduction measures which achieve the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard may be allowed. Alternative noise reduction measures, such as building orientation and use of noise-attenuating features, can be utilized provided that a site-specific acoustical analysis is conducted that demonstrates that the alternative methods would ensure that noise levels do not exceed the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard.

Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the City of Salinas based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable. The design/appearance of the wall is subject to City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans and
respective
permits
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-33

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
the design approval by the City of Salinas to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided.

Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City’s Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffiti.

These graffiti prevention best management practices may include, without limitation:
(1) The use or the installation and maintenance of ant-graffiti materials and surface treatments approved by the City on likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
(2) Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. (3) Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffitiattracting surfaces. (4) Immediate removal of graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two hours.
(5) Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
(6) Authorizing right of access by city employees or contract agents to remove graffiti if not removed within specified time periods. (7) Supplying the city at its request with paint (of the appropriate color and type), cleaning agents, and/or other materials acceptable to the city to abate or to deter graffiti.
(8) Other requirements, as deemed reasonably feasible by the city planner, to deter, to protect or to reduce the potential for graffiti

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
defacement.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: Prior to the approval of building permits, the first row of residential dwellings located along E. Boronda Road and Constitution Boulevard shall include windows having a Sound Transmission Class (STC) 35, or higher, rating installed in second floor facades and rooms that have windows or doors that abut or face E. Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard. Exterior walls shall also require 3-coat stucco and RC-channels, sheathing, or another acceptable construction application that effectively attenuates noise intrusion to the interior of the house. The exterior wall specifications would specifically apply to the first row of homes that abut or face E. Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard and only apply to the facades facing these roadways. The specifications do not apply to single story homes, or the first floor of a two-story home, both of which are attenuated by the sound wall. These requirements shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. A detailed analysis of any additional interior mitigation measures shall be conducted when building plans are available and prior to building permit issuance to verify these requirements. These requirements shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: Prior to the approval of building permits, mechanical ventilation shall be required in the first row of all residential dwellings that abut E. Boronda Road and Constitution Boulevard, as desired for acoustical isolation, to keep their doors and windows closed and still maintain acceptable interior temperature and noise levels. This requirement shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. This requirement shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
building
permits
Prior to
approval of
building
permits
Impact 3.7-5: The proposed
project has the potential to
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial noise from proposed
park and school uses
Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, as applicable, when parks or play areas are located near residential uses, the center of active play areas, such as football fields, soccer fields or other athletic fields, shall be located at a minimum distance of 90-feet from the nearest residential property lines. Large active play areas shall comply with the 60 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax standards, and shall include these further noise level evaluations during the design phases of future park areas.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
approval of site
improvement
plans
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-35

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Parks shall be designed such that residences front, or side in limited locations where approved by the City Planner, to the park. Minimum 6-foot tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed where school site directly abuts a residential property line in instances where site design (i.e., minimum distances, siting of activity areas, etc.) cannot achieve the 60 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax noise standards. No wall shall be required where residential uses are fronted towards a park or school site and separated by a roadway or a walkway.

Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. The design/appearance of the walls is subject to the design approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided. Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City’s Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffiti (see Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 for further discussion of best management practices).

Impact 3.7-6: The proposed
project has the potential to
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial noise from proposed
commercial mixed-uses
Mitigation Measure 3.7-7: Prior to the approval of development review permits, the plans shall demonstrate: where mixed use commercial, business professional, office, or similar uses face residential uses or where loading docks or truck circulation routes face residential areas, the following measures shall be included in the project design:
• All HVAC equipment shall be located within mechanical rooms where possible or shielded from view with solid or grated barriers; • Emergency generators shall comply with the City’s noise criteria at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers;
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
approval of
development
review permits

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
• Delivery/loading activities shall comply with the Salinas Zoning Code standards and regulations; and
The applicant shall submit a noise study to verify that the appropriate noise control measures have been incorporated into the project design and will achieve compliance with the City’s noise level standards.

Impact 3.7-7: The proposed
project has the potential to
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial noise from proposed
well sites
Mitigation Measure 3.7-8: The potential well sites are shown in the Specific Plan. The actual wells are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the City pursuant to the requirements of the Salinas Zoning Code and the Central Area Specific Plan. The potential well sites and the CUP requirement for said facilities shall be clearly noted on the site improvement plans.

Prior to approval of the CUP and subsequent issuance of the building permits for the wells, the plans shall demonstrate that the following measures shall be included in the project design:
• The wells have been designed and will be built to not exceed a noise level of 55 dB Leq at the nearest residential or school property line during normal operation of the facilities;
• The generators shall not be permitted to exceed the City’s daytime noise standard of 60 dB Leq;
• The generators shall be tested only during daytime hours; and Additionally, that the wells have been designed (in accordance with the Central Area Specific Plan) to incorporate decorative screen walls, landscaping and other features to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of the
CUP and
subsequent
issuance of the
building
permits for the
well and
treatment plant
facilities

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed
project may require the
construction of fire department
facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each dwelling unit (and prior to issuance of building permits for non-residential uses), the applicant shall pay all applicable project impact fees per the impact fee schedule.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy for
each dwelling
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-37

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
environmental impacts unit (and prior
to issuance of
building
permits for
non-residential
uses)
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
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each dwelling unit, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50 to the Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD), Alisal Union School District (AUSD), and/or Santa Rita Union School District (SRUSD) (only required for the SRUSD if the school district boundary adjustment between the SRUSD and the AUSD is not completed as anticipated) and provide documentation of said payment to the City.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits for
each dwelling
unit

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.10-1: Under Existing
Plus Project conditions,
implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan would conflict with
the performance measures
established by the City of Salinas,
Monterey County, and Caltrans
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-1: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings at North Main Street/Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-2: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the widening of the intersection at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive to add additional northbound and southbound through lanes, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). This improvement is part of the City’s Traffic Improvement Program. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-3: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of North Sanborn Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-4: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings and to add an eastbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Drive/La Posada Way, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. This condition includes the addition of an eastbound left turn pocket and optimization of the existing signal timing to better accommodate the expected changes in traffic distribution and volume with implementation of the proposed project. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-5: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings and splits at the South Sanborn/North Sanborn/John Street intersection, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-39

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6: Prior to the approval of final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share funding to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Regional Development Impact Fee (RDIF) Program and the City of Salinas’ Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program, as determined by the TAMC and the City of Salinas, respectively, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant. These programs include improvements to U.S. 101 that would improve mainline and ramp junction operations, which would mitigate the proposed project’s impact to the U.S. 101 ramp junctions affected by the proposed project (i.e. the Northbound Boronda Road OffRamp and Northbound West Laurel Drive Off-Ramp.

City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Impact 3.10-2: Under Existing
Plus Project and Central Area
Specific Plan conditions,
implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan may conflict with
the performance measures
established by the City of Salinas,
Monterey County, and Caltrans
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-7: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the installation of a traffic signal at San Juan Grade Road/Van Buren Avenue, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans for each stage of project development shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-8: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding to optimize the existing traffic signal timing and splits at intersection of North Main Street/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-9: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of the existing signal timing at San Juan Grade Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-10: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding to convert the eastbound right turn lane to a shared through-right turn lane at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-11: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of North Sanborn Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-41

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-12: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Williams Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-13: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding to add a southbound left turn pocket and optimize traffic signal timings at the traffic signal at Salinas Street/North Main Street/West Market Street/East Market Street, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Impact 3.10-3: Under Cumulative
Plus Project conditions,
implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan may conflict with
the transportation performance
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-14: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share of funding to the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee to provide improvements addressing this impact identified as the installation of a City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
measures established by the City
of Salinas, Monterey County, and
Caltrans
traffic signal at intersection of U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Echo Valley Road/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. Regional fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas in consultation with TAMC. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-15: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share of the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee to provide improvements addressing this impact identified as the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas in consultation with TAMC.

Fees are payable prior to final improvement plans for each tentative map.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-16: Prior to the approval of final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Crazy Horse Canyon Road/San Juan Grade Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall consider the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-17: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Natividad Road/Rogge Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall consider the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-43

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
(ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-18: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Natividad Road/Russell Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-19: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of southbound and westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of North Main Street/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-20: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a northbound right turn overlap phase at the intersection of North Main Street/West Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-21: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Constitution Boulevard/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-22: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Stage Road/Williams Road/Private Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-23: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a northbound through lane, the addition of a northbound right turn overlap phase, and the conversion of the westbound through lane to a westbound shared through-left turn lane at the intersection of North Main Street/East Bernal Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-45

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
improvement plans shall note these improvements and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-24: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a northbound and southbound through lanes at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Drive/La Posada Way, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-25: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Williams Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-26: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of South Davis Road/Blanco Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-27: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a northbound left turn lane at the City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
intersection of Main Street/Blanco Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Impact 3.10-4: Under Cumulative
Plus Project with Central Area
Specific Plan conditions,
implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan may conflict with
the transportation performance
measures established by the City
of Salinas, Monterey County, and
Caltrans
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-28: Prior to the approval of final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Old Stage Road/Hebert Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas.

The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-29: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of an eastbound left turn lane at Constitution Boulevard/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-30: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of an appropriately sized roundabout at North Sanborn Road/Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

City of Salinas
Public Works
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
approval of
final
improvement
plans for each
tentative map
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-47

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-31: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of a southbound left turn lane at East Front Street/Sherwood Drive/Market Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-32: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of an eastbound through lane at Salinas Street/North Main Street/West Market Street/East Market Street, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for nonresidential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-33: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-14, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Echo Valley Road/Crazy Horse Canyon Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-34: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-15, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Crazy Horse Canyon Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-35: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-16, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Crazy Horse Canyon Road/San Juan Grade Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-36: Implement previously City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-28, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Old Stage Road/Hebert Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-37: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-17, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Natividad Road/Rogge Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-38: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-18, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Natividad Road/Russell Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-39: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-7, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at San Juan Grade Road/Van Buren Avenue.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-40: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-8 and 3.10-19, which identifies the need to install southbound and westbound left turn lanes, and to optimize signal timing, at North Main Street/East Boronda Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-41: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-2, which identifies the need to install northbound and southbound through lanes at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-42: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-21 and 3.10-29, which identify the need to Install southbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane at Constitution Boulevard/East Laurel Drive.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-43: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-3, which identifies the need to install a roundabout at the intersection at North Sanborn Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-49

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Road/Boronda Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-44: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-22, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Old Stage Road/Williams Road/Private Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-45: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-23, which identifies the need to install a northbound through lane, add in a northbound right turn overlap phase, and convert the westbound through lane to a westbound shared through-left turn lane at the intersection of North Main Street/East Bernal Drive.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-46: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approvals 3.10-4 and 3.10-24, which identify the need to install northbound and southbound through lanes, Optimize existing signal timings, and add an eastbound left turn pocket, at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Drive/La Posada Way.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-47: Implement previously identified Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-12 and 3.10-25, which identify the need to traffic signal or roundabout, to improve the intersection’s LOS to A during the evening peak hour, and to install an eastbound left turn lane, at the intersection of Williams Road/East Boronda Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-48: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-31, which identifies the need install a southbound left turn lane at the intersection of East Front Street/Sherwood Drive/Market Drive.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-49: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-26, which identifies the need install a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of South Davis Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Road/Blanco Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-50: Implement previously identified Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-13 and 3.10-32, which identify the need to install a southbound left turn lane and optimize signal timings, and to install an eastbound through lane, at the intersection of Salinas Street/North Main Street/West Market Street/East Market Street.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-51: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-27, which identifies the need to install a northbound left turn lane at the intersection at South Main Street/Blanco Road.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-52: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6, which identifies the need to contribute to the TAMC RDIF Program and payment of the City of Salinas’s Traffic Impact Fees for the U.S. 101 Mainline Segments.

City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
City of Salinas
Community
Development
Department
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
Prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
prior to
building permit
issuance for
non-residential
development
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-51

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT FOR THE 2002 SALINAS GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM EIR

AESTHETICS
A1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-1 – City Gateway Guidelines. Implementation Program CD-1 requires the City to implement the City’s Gateway Guidelines addressing identification graphics and entry signs, lighting, and landscaping for the City’s major entry points identified in Figure CD-1.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-2 – Architectural Design. Implementation Program CD-2 requires the City to strengthen the City’s Design Guidelines and require compliance to enhance the City’s visual appeal and ensure compatible, aesthetically pleasing development with particular emphasis on: 1) historic areas of the community; and 2) properties visible from Highway 101.

Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-3 – Lighting Ordinance, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program CD-3 requires the City to improve the City Lighting Ordinance to ensure that: 1) all future outdoor lights include cut-off lenses to minimize light dispersion above the fixture head; 2) a lighting study is required to be performed when appropriate to ensure adequate light levels, while not exceeding industry standards; and 3) sky glow is reduced.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-4 – Landscaping Standards, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program CD4 requires the City to implement landscaping requirements for public and private development and redevelopment projects to promote greater visual and functional compatibility with residential development and pedestrian/bicycle use.

Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-5 – Review Discretionary Development Projects, on an ongoing basis.

Implementation Program CD-5 requires the City to review discretionary development proposals for potential aesthetics impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The standards established in the Zoning Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, Landscaping Standards, Lighting Ordinance, Gateway Guidelines, the projects incorporation of Traditional Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Neighborhood Development (TND) characteristics, and the projects potential to damage or block scenic resources and views will be used to determine the significance of impacts. If potential impacts are identified, mitigation in the form of project redesign (e.g., bulk, height, architectural details, lighting) will be required to reduce the impact to a level less than significant.

A6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-10 – Buffers, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program COS-10 requires the City to encourage the provision and maintenance of buffers, such as roadways, topographic features, and open space, to prevent incompatibilities between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. A number of factors shall be used to determine the appropriate buffer, including type of agricultural use, topography, and pesticide and machinery use, among others.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 – Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, on an ongoing basis.

Implementation Program COS-9 requires the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth occur generally to the north and east away from the most productive farmland.

Community
Development,
County of
Monterey
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A8 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7 – City-Centered Growth, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program LU-7 requires the City to give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands and establish an incentive program to promote these projects, such as priority permit processing and density bonuses, for such developments.

Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency
Ongoing –
though the
project convert
existing
agricultural
lands to urban
development,
the City is
required to
implement this
measure
everywhere it
applies.

A9 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-8 – California Main Street Program on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program CD-8 requires the City to expand community participation in the Community
Development,
Public Works,
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-53

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Main Street Program and continue to work with the Program to create an identity that emphasizes our cultural heritage and attracts businesses and consumers to the downtown area.

Redevelopment
Agency,
Oldtown
Salinas
organization
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

A10 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-14 – Historic/Architectural Preservation, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program COS-13 requires the City to consider implementing a historic/architectural preservation program and a historic/architectural preservation ordinance that encourages public/private partnerships to preserve and enhance historically significant buildings in the community.

Measures to implement may include, but are not limited to, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), establishment of criteria for a historic/architectural resources review process, and implementation of a Mills Act program. TDR could benefit the community by protecting historic resources through an agreement that allows the development potential (“rights”) on the historic property to be transferred to another property when the historic resources on the original property is preserved.

The Mills Act program would involve the City entering into a contract with a property owner to change how the County Assessor calculates taxes on their property in exchange for the continued preservation of the property by the property owner. The adjusted property taxes are recalculated using a formula in the Mills Act and Revenue and Taxation Code.

Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency, City
Manager’s
Office, City
Council, County
Assessors
Office
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
AG1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 – Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requires the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth occur generally to the north and east away from the most productive farmland.

Community
Development,
County of
Monterey
Ongoing – the
project would
comply with
this measure.

AG2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7 – City-Centered Growth, which requires the City to give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands. Establish an incentive program to promote these projects, such as priority permit processing and density bonuses for such Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency
Ongoing –
although the
project would
develop
agricultural

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
developments. lands, the City
gives infill
development
priority for
development
an ongoing
basis.

AG3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-11, which requires the City to be consistent with the County of Monterey’s “Right-to-Farm” Ordinance, and the County of Monterey Draft General Plan Policy LU-7.8 and Actions LU-7.b and LU-7.c, revise the City’s Zoning Ordinance to require the recordation of a Right-to-Farm Notice as a condition of discretionary permit approval for residential development within 1,000 feet of an established agricultural operation. The purpose of the Notice is to acknowledge that residents in the area may experience inconveniences and discomfort associated with the normal farming and grazing activities, such as noise and dust. The Notice shall specifically state that a variety of activities may occur that may be incompatible with the proposed development and that an established agricultural operation in full compliance with applicable laws, shall not be considered a nuisance due to changes in the surrounding area. The Notice shall also state that a person’s right to recover under a nuisance claim against these activities may be restricted.

Community
Development,

ACOE, FWS,
CDFG
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

AG4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-10 - Buffers, which requires the City to encourage the provision and maintenance of buffers, such as roadways, topographic features, and open space, to prevent incompatibilities between agricultural and nonagricultural land uses. A number of factors shall be used to determine the appropriate buffer, including type of agricultural use, topography, and pesticide and machinery use, among others.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

AG5 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.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-55

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-3 – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Update, which requires the City to review and update the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to help implement the General Plan policies and New Urbanism principles.

Community
Development,
Public Works
Ongoing – the
project is
consistent with
the General
Plan and
follows New
Urbanism
principles.

LU2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-8 – Local Agency Formation Commission, which requires the City to be consistent with a portion of Draft Policy LU 3.4 of the Monterey County Draft General Plan, and to cooperate with LAFCO and the County of Monterey to direct growth outside the City limits to the Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served, with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, an extensive road network, public transit, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails, and open space.

Community
Development,
LAFCO, County
of Monterey
Ongoing – the
Central Area
Specific Plan is
consistent
these
requirements.

LU3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-22 – Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City to update and implement the Airport Master Plan. Funding has been approved to update the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan. The update should contain the following: address minimum distance for the Eastern bypass south of airport, define how the Eastern bypass can best be integrated with ILS approach, and determine limitations on surrounding land uses and new roadways to allow continuation of airport operations, including the potential lengthening of runway 31/13, and the California International Airshow. Upon any update of the Airport Master Plan, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan or the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the Salinas General Plan will be reviewed and revised, as necessary.

Community
Development,
Salinas Airport
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

LU4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-23 – Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan, which requires the City to continue to support the implementation of the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan (MCALUP) and support the timely update of the MCALUP to Community
Development,
Salinas Airport,
County of
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
meet new State guidelines. Monterey applies.

LU5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 – Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requiring the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth occur generally to the north and east away from the most productive farmland.

Community
Development,
County of
Monterey
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

LU6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7, which requires the City to encourage City-Centered Growth and give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands. The City will also establish an incentive program to promote these projects, such as priority permit processing and density bonuses for such developments.

Community
Development,
Redevelopment
Agency
Ongoing –
though the
project convert
existing
agricultural
lands to urban
development,
the City is
required to
implement this
measure
everywhere it
applies.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
H1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-8 – Household Hazardous Waste Program, which requires the City to continue to work with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to implement the Household Hazardous Waste program to protect resident from dangers resulting from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the home.

County of
Monterey
Environmental
Health Division,
Salinas Valley
Solid Waste
Authority
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H2 The City will implement General Plan implementation Program S-9 – Small Business Hazardous Waste Program, which requires the City to continue to work with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to implement the Small Business Hazardous Waste Program, which allows qualified small businesses to dispose of their hazardous wastes at the Salinas Hazardous Household Waste Collection Facility.

County of
Monterey
Environmental
Health Division,
Salinas Valley
Solid Waste
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-57

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Authority
H3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-7 – Hazardous Materials, which requires the City to minimize public health risks and environmental risks from the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials by:
• Cooperating with federal, state, and county agencies to effectively regulate the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste;
• Cooperating with the County of Monterey to implement the applicable portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
• Identifying roadway transportation routes for conveyance of hazardous materials (the City does not exercise jurisdictional over transportation of freight along railroad right-of- way or state highways);
• Implementing the Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan for accidents involving hazardous materials; and
• Cooperating with the Certified Unified program Agency (CUPA) for Salinas (the County of Monterey, Environmental Health Division) and the Salinas Fire Department to administer Risk Management Plans for businesses within the City.
• Requiring development project applicants to provide a hazardous materials report documenting past uses of the property and reporting the results of soil sampling where needed to determine whether remediation is required.

County of
Monterey,
Environmental
Health Division,
Salinas Fire
Department,
California
Department of
Transportation
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-6 – Pesticide Use, which requires the City to continue to monitor regulations governing the use of pesticides and work with the County Agricultural Commission to promote the responsible use of pesticides.

Community
Development,
Fire
Department,
County
Agriculture
Commission
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-18 – Flood Control Insurance, which requires the City to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Community
Development,
Development
and Permit
Services, Public
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Works applies.

H6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-19 – Flood Overlay District Regulations, which requires the City to continue to apply the Flood Overlay District regulations, pursuant to the City’s Zoning Code and implement Section 9, Article VI of the Municipal Code, to minimize the potential impact to and from new development in areas subject to flooding. Update the boundaries of the District as needed to reflect current hydrologic conditions.

Community
Development,
Development
and Permit
Services, Public
Works
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-17 – Project-Related Flood Control and Stormwater Management, which requires, as a condition of project approval, new development to provide adequate storm water and flood management facilities as determined by the Public Works Department. In order to determine the facility and Best Management Practices (BMP) needs, the City may require a hydrological/drainage analysis to be performed by a certified an Cityapproved engineer, with the cost of said analysis the responsibility of the project applicant.

Public Works Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H8 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-22 – Promote Fire Prevention, which requires the City to promote fire prevention in Salinas by:
• Working closely with the Salinas Fire Department to implement fire hazard education and fire prevention programs;
• Coordinating with Cal Water and Alco water districts and the Salinas Fire Department to ensure that water pressure for existing developed areas and sites to be developed is adequate for fire fighting purposes;
• Conform to Fire Department requirements for individual projects;
• Adopting and implementing the most recent Uniform Fire Code provisions and appropriate amendments; and
• Continue to require sprinklers in new buildings.

Development
and Permit
Services, Fire
Department,
water
companies
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H9 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-10 – Weed Abatement, which requires the City to continue to monitor and abate weeds throughout the community.

Weed
Abatement
Specialist
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-59

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
applies.

H10 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-12 – Fire Protection, Emergency Services, and Law Enforcement Annual Level Of Service Review, which requires the City to review the level of services and funding levels at budget time, adjusting when necessary to ensure that adequate levels of service are provided and facilities are maintained.

Fire
Department,
Police
Department
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H11 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-21 – Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City to continue working with the Salinas Airport Commission to implement the Airport Master Plan, providing technical assistance and information to the Commission when necessary. Funding has been approved to update the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan. The update should contain the following: address minimum distance for Eastern bypass south of airport, define how Eastern bypass can best be integrated with ILS approach, and determine limitations on surrounding land uses and new roadways to allow continuation of airport operations, including the potential lengthening of runway 31/13, and the California International Airshow.

Upon any update of the Airport Master Plan, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan or the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the Salinas General Plan will be reviewed and revised, as necessary.

Community
Development,
Salinas Airport
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H12 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program C-8 – Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, which requires the City to continue to coordinate with the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on projects near the airport. Encourage ALUC to update its County Airport Land Use Plan.

Community
Development,
Salinas Airport,
Public Works,
County of
Monterey,
Development
and Permit
Services
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H13 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-11 – Air Transportation Safety, which requires the City to minimize the potential for accidents related to aircraft operation by coordinating with the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to review development proposals for compatibility with the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan, and Community
Development,
Development
and Permit
Services,
Monterey
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for comprehensive airport land use planning.

County ALUC,
Salinas Airport
applies.

H14 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-12 – Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City to revise the Airport Master Plan in order to update operational and safety procedures, reflect State and Federal mandates, better utilize airport property, and recommend land use compatibility standards for land surrounding the airport.

Community
Development,
Salinas Airport,
ALUC
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H15 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program N-4 – Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City upon any update of the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, the County Airport Land Use Plan, or California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, review and revise as necessary Table N-4, Figure N-2, and the goals, policies, and noise plan within the General Plan Noise Element to correspond with the updated Airport Master Plan.

Community
Development,
Salinas Airport
Commission,
ALUC
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

H16 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-23 – Multi-hazard Emergency Plan, which requires the City to annually review and update the Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan under the provision of the State Emergency Management System format to maximize the efforts of emergency service providers (e.g., fire, medical, and law enforcement) and minimize human suffering and property damage during disasters. Provide annual practice sessions to the City. Support high-level multi-jurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency planning and management.

Solicit private individuals and organizations to enhance service provider communications and response with cellular telephones, ham radios, AM/FM radio, and cable television.

Community
Development,
Police
Department,
Fire
Department,
public and
private medical
facilities,
Monterey
County
Emergency
Communication
s, Monterey
County Mobile
Emergency
Coordination
Unit, Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-61

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
H17 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-23 – Emergency Preparedness Education, which requires the City to coordinate with local agencies and organizations to educate all citizens to take appropriate action to safeguard life and property during and immediately after emergencies.

Fire
Department,
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

GEOLOGY/SOILS
GS1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-14, Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, prior to the approval of a discretionary permit. Implementation Program S-14 requires the City to assess development proposals for potential hazards pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, requiring measures when necessary to mitigate all identified public safety hazards.

Community
Development,
Fire
Department,
Public Works
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

GS2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-15 – Open Space Easements for Natural Hazards, when the threat from natural hazards cannot be mitigated through geotechnical and structural design methods. Implementation Program S-15 requires the City to use open space easements and other regulatory techniques to prohibit development and avoid unmitigable public safety hazards.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

GS3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-16 – Structural Design, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-16 requires the City to implement the most recent state building and seismic Development
and Permit
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
requirements for the structural design of new development and redevelopment projects.

Services this measure
everywhere it
applies.

GS4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-17 – Soil and Geologic Surveys, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-17 requires that during the review of development and redevelopment proposals, the City require surveys of soil and geologic conditions by state licensed Engineering Geologists and Civil Engineers where appropriate.

When potential geologic impacts are identified, the City shall require project applicants to mitigate the impacts per the recommendations contained within the geologic survey.

Community
Development,
Development
and Permit
Services, Public
Works
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

GS5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-23 – Multi-hazard Emergency Plan, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-23 requires the City to maintain the Multi-hazard Emergency Plan under the provision of the State Emergency Management System format to maximize the efforts of emergency service providers (e.g., fire, medical, and law enforcement) and minimize human suffering and property damage during disasters. Support high-level multi-jurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency planning and management.

Solicit private individuals and organizations to enhance service provider communications and response with cellular telephones, ham radios, AM/FM radio, and cable television.

Community
Development,
Police
Department,
Fire
Department,
public and
private medical
facilities,
Monterey
County
Emergency
Communication
s, Monterey
County Mobile
Emergency
Coordination
Unit, Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-63

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Services
GS6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-24 – Emergency Preparedness Education, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-23 requires the City coordinate with local agencies and organizations to educate all residents and businesses to take appropriate action to safeguard life and property during and immediately after emergencies.

Fire
Department,
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PH1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program HE-2 – Provision of Future Sites, which requires the City to continue to work with the Local Agency Formation Commission to ensure that sufficient land, infrastructure, and services are available to support housing development.

Community
Development
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

PH2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-12 – Fire Protection, Emergency Services, and Law Enforcement Annual Level of Service Review, which requires the City to review the level of services and funding levels at budget time, adjusting when necessary to ensure that adequate levels of service are provided and facilities are maintained.

Fire
Department,
Police
Department
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

PH3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program C-3 – Capital Improvement Plan, which requires the City to continue to update on an annual basis the Capital Improvement Plan to plan for and fund future improvements to the circulation system, as well as other public facilities, including improvements to the existing pedestrian and bicycle system, within the community.

Public Works Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
PH4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 – Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requires the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth occur generally to the north and east from the most productive farmland.

Community
Development,
County of
Monterey
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

PH5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-33 – Promote Energy Retrofit Programs, which requires the City to promote retrofit programs by the City to reduce energy usage and consequently reduce emissions from energy consumption. Encourage utility companies to provide informational literature about available retrofit programs at City offices, the Permit Center, and libraries.

Development
and Permit
Services, utility
companies
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

PH6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-11 – Smart Growth Principles, which requires the City to use the Smart Growth Network’s Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation (ICMA, 2002) or other similar policy manual, perform an “audit” of the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to identify potential impediments to the development of smart growth and traditional neighborhood development projects. Revise, adopt, and implement new standards and procedures as necessary to encourage smart growth and traditional neighborhood development in Salinas.

Community
Development,
Public Works
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

PH7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-23 – Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Management Plan, which requires the City to continue to cooperate with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to implement the most recent Air Quality Management plan to address regional motor vehicle emissions. In particular, coordinate with the District and AMBAG, providing technical assistance and demographic data when available, during the development of future population projections by AMBAG.

Community
Development,
Monterey Bay
Unified Air
Pollution
Control
District,
AMBAG
Ongoing – the
City is required
to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

4.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-65 This page left intentionally blank.

REPORT PREPARERS 5.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas West Area Specific Plan 5.0-1

REPORT PREPARERS
City of Salinas
Courtney Grossman.......................................................................................... Planning Manager Jill Miller..................................................................................... Senior Planner/Project Manager Andrew Easterling, PE, TE .....................................................................................Traffic Engineer James Serrano .......................................................................................... Transportation Planner Tara Hullinger.....................................................................................Planning Manager (Former) Gabriel Elliott........................................................................................Project Manager (Former) De Novo Planning Group
Ben Ritchie ..............................................................................Principal Planner/Project Manager Steve McMurtry .................................................................Principal Planner/Co-Project Manager Beth Thompson ................................................................................................. Principal Planner Amanda Tropiano .............................................................................................. Principal Planner Martti Eckert .........................................................................................................Senior Planner Megan Thorne .......................................................................................................Senior Planner Elise Carroll .......................................................................................................Associate Planner William Crenshaw..............................................................................................Associate Planner Josh Smith .........................................................................................................Associate Planner

REPORT CONTRIBUTORS
Balance Hydrologics
Benjamin Roberts, PhD, P.E. ................................................................. Senior Hydraulic Engineer Anne E. Senter, PhD........................................................................Geomorphologist/Hydrologist Fehr and Peers
Fred Choa, P.E .................................................................................................. Principal Engineer Bill Burton............................................................................................................Senior Associate

5.0 REPORT PREPARERS

5.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Salinas West Area Specific Plan Rebecca Shafer.........................................................................Transportation Engineer / Planner Geocon
John E. Juhrend, PE, CEG ...................................................................................... Senior Engineer Jim Brake, PG. ..................................................................................................... Senior Geologist JC Brennan & Associates – Noise Consultant
Jim Brennan ......................................................................................President/Senior Consultant Peak & Associates – Cultural Consultant
Melinda Peak .................................................................................................................President Robert A. Gerry. ............................................................................................. Senior Archeologist Remy Moose Manley – Attorneys
James G. Moose ..............................................................................................................Attorney Exhibit H

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS

FOR THE CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Salinas (hereinafter “City”), as lead agency, prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter “EIR”) for the Central Area Specific Plan (hereinafter “Specific Plan” or “project”). In its entirety, the EIR consists of the June 26, 2020 Draft Program EIR (hereinafter “Draft EIR” or “DEIR”) and the October 8, 2020 Final Program EIR (hereinafter “Final EIR” or “FEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2017091022).

The Applicant has submitted applications requesting approval of the Central Area Specific Plan, Rezoning, and Development Agreement. As approved, the project will facilitate the City’s future consideration of applications for individual projects to be proposed within the Specific Plan Area.

The EIR analyzes the impacts of the Central Area Specific Plan and the anticipated subsequent filing of maps and other development applications in the future. Therefore, the EIR analyzes the total impacts of the Central Area Specific Plan, including these applications yet unfiled, so that future filings will not require separate environmental analysis, as long as development proposed does not substantially deviate from the approved Specific Plan. The specific processes by which the City will review individual applications are set forth on pages ES-1 through pages ES-4 of the Draft EIR and are also described below in section III(D).

These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations in Section XI below, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter “CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq) and its implementing guidelines (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq).

II. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS
Like the EIR itself, these findings use a number of acronyms. Key acronyms are defined the first time they are introduced in the text of this document.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location
As described in the DEIR, the City of Salinas is located in northern Monterey County, within the Salinas Valley between the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountain ranges. Salinas is situated approximately 20 miles northeast of the City of Monterey, 60 miles south of San Jose, 100 miles south of San Francisco and 325 miles north of Los Angeles. Figure 2-1 in the Draft EIR displays the project regional location. Several regional transportation routes are located within or near Salinas, including U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), State Routes 68 (SR 68) and 183 (SR 183), the 2 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Union Pacific Railroad line and the Monterey Regional Airport in Monterey. Salinas Municipal Airport, a general aviation facility, is located in the southeastern portion of the city.

The Specific Plan Area is bounded by Natividad Road on the west, East Boronda Road (also referred to as “Boronda Road”) on the south, Old Stage Road and the future extension of Constitutional Boulevard on the east, and the future extension of Russell Road on the north. U.S. 101 and North Main Street are located to the west. Unincorporated land under the jurisdiction of the County of Monterey abuts the Specific Plan Area to the north.

B. Overview
The Central Area Specific Plan (hereinafter also referred to as Specific Plan) will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, development regulations and design standards, for the approximately 760-acre Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Salinas General Plan and individual development applications in the Specific Plan Area, applying—and adding greater specificity to—the goals, policies and concepts of the General Plan for that area. The Specific Plan provides a complete blueprint for development of the Specific Plan Area, including:
• A description of proposed land uses,
• Policies, regulations and standards to support the Specific Plan, • Infrastructure needed to support the Specific Plan, and • Implementation and administrative processes needed for plan development.

The Specific Plan has been crafted to be consistent with overall community goals as expressed in the General Plan, as well as more specific policies and implementation measures contained in other documents. The City of Salinas Zoning Code requirements will apply to development applications and property within the Specific Plan Area unless specifically superseded by the development regulations or design standards contained in the Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan will establish the overall land use concept and development framework for the Central Area. The specific planning process involves analyses of the following: planning, environmental, financial, and engineering. The process also includes public comment and contribution; developing a document that will guide the future development of the Specific Plan Area; and subsequent implementation measures recommended by the Specific Plan. The contents of the Specific Plan reflect the physical characteristics of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the City’s goals for land use change in general and for the Specific Plan Area in particular.

The Specific Plan establishes and/or identifies:
• The context for the Specific Plan by describing New Urbanism and other design principles, purpose, relationship to and conformance with the General Plan policies, the preparation process, and the content of the Plan.
• The land use plan, General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations, development intensities, and organization of land uses used to meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. • The use classifications and development regulations to implement the land uses contained in the Specific Plan which will create a New Urbanism style community. 3 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • The standards that guide design and planning of residential and mixed-use commercial development, as well as parks and other amenities.
• The location and classification of roadways and the circulation infrastructure needed to link the Specific Plan Area to the vicinity road network. • Public services and a framework for expansion of infrastructure systems. • The plans for low impact development features and supplemental stormwater collection system that are being incorporated into the project to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Stormwater Development Standards (SWDS) and Stormwater Standard Plans (SWSP).
• The proposed financing plan, project phasing, public facility cost summaries, and funding sources.
• The project review process, actions, and approvals needed to implement and amend the Specific Plan.

C. Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the project is the approval and subsequent implementation of the Central Area Specific Plan and related entitlements. The quantifiable objectives of the project include the development of up to 3,911 residential dwelling units, up to 489,700 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 61 net acres of public facilities (including one elementary school, one middle school, one combined elementary and middle school, a fire station, a public library, utility facilities, and a prominent site reserved for public/semipublic use [e.g. religious assembly), and approximately 148 net acres dedicated to parks and open space uses.

The Specific Plan goals are summarized as follows:
• Preserving and minimizing the disruption of agricultural lands and to achieve the other benefits of compact urban design, by requiring new neighborhoods to achieve a minimum average density of nine (9) units per net residential developable acre, exclusive of open space, parks, schools, streets and other non-developable areas, through a mix of low, medium and high densities in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan; • 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;
• Creating a community that is visually distinguishable from other communities, with a sense of place and identity for its residents reflective of TND design principles; • Creating a center that brings together commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses and serves as a focus for community life;
• Providing ample opportunities for outdoor recreation with open spaces, schools and parks being fronted by streets or public spaces and not privatized behind backyards; 4 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • Creating attractive, safe, distinctive residential neighborhoods with as many discrete lot sizes and housing types as possible and a Village Center with a “Main Street” and mixeduse commercial area that promotes Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) design principles and contributes to the overall vitality, image and identity of the City;
It is noted that there are additional project objectives that are not specifically presented in the Specific Plan, but are more overarching and are a response to, and driven by, the policy direction from the State Legislature and the Salinas City Council.

The State Legislature has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Government Code section 65589.5). The Legislature notes that “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” The Legislature further found that “[a]mong the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” Legislative intent set forth in Government Code section 65589.5 is to “significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.” The Legislature established its policy direction in the statute as follows: “It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” The City of Salinas has recognized the need for additional housing supply for its citizens for many decades. Dating back to 1986, the City entered into the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Monterey to preserve the best agricultural land and to provide certain areas for future urban growth. Twenty years later, in 2006, the Greater Salinas Area MOU was adopted to preserve agricultural lands within Monterey County, and to provide future growth areas (FGAs) for Salinas. A year later, in 2007, applications for an amendment to the City’s Sphere of Influence (to include the FGAs) and Pre-Zoning and Annexation (for the majority of the North of Boronda FGA consisting of approximately 2,400 acres) were submitted to the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for consideration. A Supplemental EIR for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (SCH#2007031055) was also submitted in conjunction with the applications. The applications were approved by LAFCO on 5 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations May 19, 2008. The North of Boronda FGA (which includes the Central Area Specific Plan, with the exception of the Settrini/Garcia/Igaz properties) was formally annexed to the incorporated City of Salinas on September 8, 2008 and zoned New Urbanism Interim (NI) with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Central Area Specific Plan is a reflection of over twenty years of planning for new development, which is reflected by the City Council’s approval of the FGA, including annexation of the land into the City limits.

The following two overarching project objectives are presented here as a response to: 1) the State Legislature’s declaration of a housing crisis in California, 2) the State Legislature’s policy direction for the provision of more housing, 3) the Salinas City Council’s more than twenty years of planning for urban development within the FGAs, which includes the Central Area Specific Plan, and 4) the Salinas City Council’s policy direction as provided in the approved FGAs and General Plan:
• Objective 1: Respond to the State Legislature’s declaration of a housing crisis in California, and its policy direction that local governmental agencies provide more housing, by including provisions for the construction of new housing supply within the Central Area Specific Plan.
• Objective 2: Respond to the Salinas City Council’s long-term vision and policy direction for new urban development to be focused in the Future Growth Areas, by including provisions for the construction of new urban development consistent with the City of Salinas General Plan.

Based on its own review of the EIR and other information and testimony received in connection with the project, as well as the statutory and planning policies described above, the City Council finds all of these objectives to be acceptable and persuasive from a public policy standpoint. In choosing to approve the project, the City thus embraces these objectives and accords them weight in considering the feasibility of alternatives set forth in the EIR, and in invoking overriding considerations in approving the project. (See Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1507-1508.)
D. Discretionary Approvals
Project approval requires the City, as lead agency, to take discrete planning and regulatory actions to approve the overall project. In addition, certain “responsible agencies” may ultimately rely in part on the programmatic analysis in the Specific Plan Area in making decisions associated with future site-specific projects consistent with the Specific Plan. Described below are the discretionary actions necessary to carry out the project.

City of Salinas
In addition to certifying the Final EIR and adopting these Findings and the associated Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan (CEQA requirements), the City itself must approve the following actions:
6 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the Central Area Specific Plan;
• Approval of the rezoning of the Specific Plan area from New Urbanism Interim (NI) with a Specific Plan Overlay to Neighborhood Edge (NE) A/Residential Low Density, Neighborhood Edge (NE) B/ Residential Low Density, Neighborhood General (NG) A/Residential Medium Density, Neighborhood General (NG) B/Residential Medium Density, Neighborhood General (NG) C/Residential Medium Density and/or Residential High Density, Village Center (VC) A and B, Public/Semipublic (PS), Parks (P) and Open Space (OS). A Specific Plan Overlay is also applicable to each Zoning District; • Approval of the Development Agreement;
• Subsequent Approvals: Parcel Maps, tentative maps, Final Maps, Subdivision Improvement Plans, Site Improvement Plans, Grading Permits, Building Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Business Permits, Encroachment Permits, etc.

Other Responsible/Trustee Agencies
The agencies below will also use the EIR, either as responsible agencies or as trustee agencies:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (1600 permit);
• Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit, compliance with the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures);
• Monterey Bay Air Resources District – Authority to Construct; Demolition permit; • Monterey Bay Community Power – Approval to Serve the Specific Plan Area; • Monterey One Water – Approval to serve the Specific Plan Area, and Encroachment Permit;
• Monterey County Health Department - Well demolition permit, Well construction permit; • Monterey County Water Resources Agency – Approval to serve the Specific Plan Area, Encroachment Permit;
• Monterey-Salinas Transit – Approval to serve the Specific Plan Area, approval of the ultimate bus stop locations and design;
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) – Approval to serve Specific Plan Area, approval of relocation plans, approval of electric and gas utility plans, Encroachment Permit;
• Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority – Approval to serve the Specific Plan Area; • Santa Rita Union School District – Approval of a site for the construction of a new elementary school in the event that the school district boundary adjustment between the 7 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Alisal Union School District and the Santa Rita Union School District is not finalized and said school site remains within boundaries of the Santa Rita Union School District; • Alisal Union School District – The Alisal Union School District has previously acquired one of the two elementary school sites. Approval of the second elementary school site for the construction of a new elementary school would be subject to approval of the Alisal Union School District, as applicable (see above-reference bullet in this regard); and • Salinas High School District – Approval of the site for construction of a new middle school – the site has been previously acquired by the school district.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the project. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the project would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

The project has already received input in the form of Water Supply Assessments from the Alisal Water Corporation (ALCO) and California Water Service (Cal Water), which are not governmental entities. The project will also require approvals from both of those private entities to serve the Specific Plan Area.

The project will also require input or approvals from the following entities, which are not governmental agencies:
• Comcast/AT&T/SBC/Other – Approval to serve the Specific Plan Area, approval of telecommunications utility plans, Encroachment Permits; and • Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) – Approval to serve Specific Plan Area, approval of relocation plans, approval of electric and gas utility plans, Encroachment Permit.

Federal Agencies
The following federal agencies also have approval authority over some aspects of the project, though these agencies are not subject to CEQA and instead are required to comply with the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.):
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
8 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Future Projects
All individual future individual development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area will be reviewed to determine their individual CEQA compliance requirements. The type of CEQA analysis required would be determined at the time a project is proposed.

It is noted that the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e., the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. Topics such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality are analyzed at a project-level analysis in this EIR given that these are physical environmental resources, and the area of impact is fully defined. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project-level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis for these topics is driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is detailed in the land use design and development projections. In some cases, there may be specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time.

Additionally, the design of the school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time, so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level. Notably, moreover, there are special rules for school districts to follow when they conduct project-level CEQA analysis for either the purchase of land for school site or the construction of new schools. These are set forth in Public Resources Code section 21151.8.

That statute requires that project-level CEQA documents must address very particular issues that are not normally required in typical CEQA documents, such as whether a potential school site includes any of the following:
• 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;
• A hazardous substance release site;
• A site that contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, that carries hazardous substances, extremely hazardous substances, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood, or other nearby schools; or
• A site that is within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or other busy traffic corridor
Under section 21151.8, project-specific CEQA analysis for school projects proposed by school districts must also be informed by particular consultation requirements, such as consultation with the “administering agency” in which the proposed schoolsite is located and any air pollution control district or air quality management district having jurisdiction in the area. The purpose of these special consultation requirements is “to identify both permitted and nonpermitted facilities within that 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 9 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations schoolsite, that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or waste.”
This program EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the Central Area Specific Plan. The program-level approach, with some project-level analysis, is appropriate for the project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the development plan; however, as discussed above, not all design aspects of the future development phases are known at this stage in the planning process. Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically,
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.

Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not 10 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. (4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures. The checklist preparation process would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e., whether there are new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City’s expectation, at least at present, is that the checklist will conclude that most, or all, components of the Specific Plan (with the exception of schools) can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there is a high level of resolution with regard to the project details that have been analysis in this program EIR. In some cases, however, a site-specific application (i.e., commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that the program EIR for the Specific Plan did not include given the information that was available at the time the EIR was prepared. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or
b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific 11 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures. And the checklist preparation process would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e., whether all significant environmental impacts identified have been “adequately addressed” in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for these site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.

In addition, because the EIR addresses the effects of rezoning the land within the proposed Specific Plan area, the City’s future environmental review can also be streamlined pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. These provisions, which are similar but not identical to the tiering provisions, generally limit the scope of necessary environmental review for site-specific approvals following the preparation of an EIR for a “zoning action.” For such site-specific approvals, CEQA generally applies only to impacts that are “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” and have not been previously disclosed, except where “substantial new information” shows that previously identified impacts would be more significant than previously assumed. Notably, impacts are considered not to be “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” if they can be substantially mitigated pursuant to previously adopted, uniformly applied development policies or standards. As noted above, the City anticipates that, in assessing the extent to which the Specific Plan EIR has previously addressed significant impacts that might occur with individual projects, the City may conclude that in some instances (e.g., with respect to agricultural resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and paleontological resources), no further analysis beyond that found in the program EIR will be necessary.

Finally, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[a]ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [EIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [EIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.) When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the Central Area Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.
12 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Notice of Preparation (hereinafter “NOP”) of an EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 8, 2017 to October 9, 2017 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082. Written responses to the NOP were received from the following interests/agencies:

1. Alisal Water Corporation (October 6, 2017)

2. California Department of Transportation, District 5 (October 13, 2017)

3. Local Area Formation Commission of Monterey County (October 9, 2017)

4. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (October 9, 2017)

5. Monterey-Salinas Transit (September 25, 2017)

6. Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation (April 22, 2017)

7. Transportation Agency for Monterey County (October 9, 2017) As part of the early consultation process and pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines section 15083 regarding early public consultation, a 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).

Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15023, subdivision (c), and 15087, subdivision (f), the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research was responsible for distributing environmental documents to State agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution of the appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse was obligated to make, and did make, that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. The NOP was received by the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2017091022) and a 30-day public review period ended on October 9, 2017. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

An Initial Study was also prepared for the project. Included below is a brief summary of findings from the Initial Study on environmental topics that were either found to have no impact or be less than significant, or were found to be sufficiently addressed in the General Plan EIR, and thus are not included within individual sections of the Draft EIR. For full Initial Study Findings and individual topics found to be less than significant through the Initial Study process refer to Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
• Aesthetics: The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that General Plan buildout would allow development to occur in both vacant and underdeveloped portions of the community, and that the introduction/expansion of urban uses into these areas has the potential to interrupt views of natural features, open space, the hillsides, and agricultural resources, reducing the aesthetic value of these resources. Additionally, new development in the City was found to increase the amount of light and glare in the community, particularly in areas planned for nonresidential development, such as retail and general commercial. It was found that 13 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations future development under the General Plan has the potential to change the visual character of the City.

To minimize and mitigate the impacts on Citywide aesthetics, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented the following five mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure A1 requires the City to implement the City’s Gateway Guidelines; Mitigation Measure A2 requires the City to strengthen and require compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines; Mitigation Measure A3 requires the City to improve the Lighting Ordinance; Mitigation Measure A4 requires the City to implement landscaping requirements for all proposed projects; and Mitigation Measure A5 requires the City to review all discretionary projects for aesthetics impacts. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures A1 through A5, the potential citywide aesthetics impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Subsequently, the Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that aesthetic 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 project, would be required to comply with the above-referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the 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 Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007).

This topic did not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR. • Agriculture and Forest Resources: 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 of agriculture lands 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 14 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations 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.”
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 Supplemental 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 project, would be required to comply with the above-referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the 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 Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007).

This topic did not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR. • Geology and Soils: Implementation of the 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 Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). This topic did not warrant additional analysis and was not addressed further in the EIR. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: While the Draft EIR analyzes Hazards and Hazardous Materials, several topics were determined to not warrant additional analysis within the Chapter.

The land uses proposed within the Specific Plan Area would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, these uses are not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Furthermore, the project is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip; therefore, it would not result in a safety hazard related to air traffic for people residing or working in the Specific Plan Area. These topics did not warrant additional analysis and were not addressed further in the EIR.

Separately, the City has adopted a Multi-hazard Emergency Plan, which serves as extensions of the California Emergency Plan and the Emergency Resource Management 15 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Plan. The purpose of the Multi-hazard Emergency Plan is to respond to emergency situations with a coordinated system of emergency service providers and facilities. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in City Hall serves as the center of the City’s emergency operations. The Plan also addresses evacuation and movement of people in the event of an emergency. The project does not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the Multi-hazard Emergency Plan. Implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic and is not further analyzed or addressed further in the EIR.

Lastly, the project is not located in an area that is considered a high risk for wildfires.

The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic and is not further analyzed or addressed further in the EIR.
• Land Use and Planning: The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.

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

The City certified the Final Supplemental EIR and approved annexation of the North of Boronda FGA, which includes the Central Area Specific Plan. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding (GSA MOU).

All development under the project would be required to comply with the regulations, policies, and standards identifies in the 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). Implementation of the project would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed within these supporting documents. This topic did not warrant additional analysis and is not addressed further in the EIR.
• Mineral Resources: It was determined in the Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) that development of the FGA, including the Specific Plan Area, would not have a significant impact on mineral resources or mining activities. As such, implementation of the project would have no impact on mineral resources and this topic did not warrant additional analysis and is not addressed further in the EIR.
• Population and Housing: While the Draft EIR analyzes Population and Housing, several topics were determined to not warrant additional analysis within the Chapter.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that the General Plan would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or persons since the majority of the FGA 16 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations designated for future development consists of vacant, agricultural, or redevelopment of nonresidential land. Additionally, any individual units that require removal would be offset by the increase in housing by the development of approximately 18,397 additional dwelling units at General Plan buildout.

The project would necessitate the removal of some existing houses within the Specific Plan Area; however, removal of any individual units would be offset by the increase in housing by the development of approximately 3,911 additional dwelling units at Specific Plan buildout. As such, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. Implementation of the project would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the in the 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). This topic did not warrant additional analysis and is not addressed further in the EIR. • Recreation: The future residents and employees of the CASP are expected to increase demand for park and recreational facilities, some of which may increase the use of existing regional parks or other recreational facilities. However, much of the demand for park and recreational facilities will be met by the construction of new parks and recreational facilities within the boundary of the Specific Plan area. The new demand is not anticipated to cause substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. The impacts from construction of new facilities were analyzed within the context of each environmental topic of the EIR as part of the overall land use plan. This topic did not warrant additional analysis and is not addressed further in the EIR. • Transportation and Circulation: While the Draft EIR analyzes Traffic and Circulation, several topics were determined to not warrant additional analysis within the Chapter.

The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip; therefore, it would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Implementation of the project would have no impact relative to this environmental topic.

The remaining issues areas and checklist questions are analyzed in the EIR. The EIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Transportation and Circulation
17 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • Utilities
The City circulated the DEIR for public and agency review on June 26, 2020. A public review period of 45 days was provided on the DEIR and ended on August 11, 2020. This period satisfied the requirement for a 45-day public review period as set forth in Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines.

V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project includes the following documents:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP;
• The Draft EIR for the project (June 2020) and all appendices; • All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Draft EIR;
• The Final EIR for the project, including comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments and appendices;
• Documents cited or referenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project;
• The Draft Central Area Specific Plan;
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through the close of the Planning Commission public hearing, and the close of the City Council public hearing; • Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project; 18 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
• The City of Salinas General Plan and all environmental documents prepared in connection with the adoption of the General Plan;
• Any and all resolutions approved by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the City of Salinas Community Development Department, 65 West Alisal Street, Salinas, California 93901.

The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Director. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories.

Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents informed the experts who provided advice to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to the approval of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) VI. CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS
This section includes a review of the project’s relationship to the General Plan, other land use related documents/agreements, and to regional plans and identifies whether inconsistencies with these plans may exist.

Consistency with the Salinas General Plan
The Salinas General Plan states the City's vision for the community's future and outlines goals, policies and implementation measures to achieve its vision. The General Plan also projects the population, dwelling units, and non-residential building square footage associated with the future buildout of the Land Use Plan, also referred to as General Plan buildout. Typically, General Plan buildout is decades beyond the 20-year General Plan planning cycle. 19 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations As described in CEQA Guidelines section 15125, subdivision (d), an EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, regional blueprint plans, plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, habitat conservation plans, and natural community conservation plans.

New Urbanism principles, a component of the General Plan Land Use Element, were used to design a land use plan for the project that is compact and pedestrian-friendly, with a mixture of uses surrounding activity centers/neighborhood focal points in the Specific Plan Area. Higher density residential uses are proposed around retail, recreation, and public uses and all of these core activity centers are proposed to be connected with pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems.

The quantifiable objectives of the project include the development of up to 3,911 residential dwelling units, up to 489,700 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 61 net acres of public facilities (including one elementary school, one middle school, one combined elementary and middle school, a fire station, a public library, utility facilities, and a prominent site reserved for public/semipublic use [e.g. religious assembly), and approximately 148 net acres dedicated to parks and open space uses. This is consistent with the expected intensity of development within the Specific Plan Area under General Plan buildout conditions as analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002).

The Salinas General Plan requires the approval of Specific Plans prior to development of any land in the North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA). The Central Area Specific Plan includes certain development regulations and design standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Salinas Zoning Code would apply.

Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Specific Plan would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Salinas to implement. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Specific Plan Area. The land use, development standards, and design guidelines are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the project is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts, design guidelines, and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for individual parcels/project sites within the Specific Plan Area, including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that the General Plan may affect the related land use plans and policies that have been adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The Salinas Zoning Code, Salinas Redevelopment Plan, Greater Salinas Area Plan, Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan, GSA MOU, are specifically mentioned. Of these seven 20 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations documents, the project does not affect an existing Specific Plan, the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, or the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan; and the Salinas Redevelopment Plan is no longer in effect. These topics are not discussed further, but the other three are discussed below.

Salinas Zoning Code
The Specific Plan Area is currently zoned NI with a Specific Plan Overlay. The project includes a rezone to Neighborhood Edge (NE) A, NE B, Neighborhood General (NG) A, NG B, NG C, Village Center (VC-A & VC-B), Open Space (OS), Park (P), and Public/ Semipublic (PS). The purpose of the rezone is to ensure consistency between the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning. With the approval of the rezoning application, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the Salinas Zoning Code.

City/County Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding In 2006, the City and the County adopted the GSA MOU to allow for annexation and development of specific parcels that are located outside of the Future Growth Areas as illustrated in the General Plan. These areas were not contemplated for annexation and development at the time the General Plan was adopted. These areas include, but are not limited to, the "Unikool", Boronda Road, and Fresh Express sites.

The GSA MOU describes the intent of the City and County to consider annexation of the subject growth areas to the City and identifies framework conditions under which annexations could be considered. The following excerpt from the Preface of the GSA MOU identifies its general intent:
“This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), by and between the County of Monterey (County) and the City of Salinas (City), is to set forth certain agreements between the parties to express their intent to jointly pursue action to assure orderly and appropriate land use development in the area designated in the General Plan of Monterey County as the Greater Salinas Area Plan area and in the City of Salinas. Specific objectives to be achieved through the implementation of the land use and associated policies included in this MOU are the preservation of certain agriculture land, the provision of future growth areas, and the provision of adequate financing for the services and facilities of benefit to the residents of the Greater Salinas Area Plan area and the City.”
With the adoption of the GSA MOU, both the City and the County acknowledged that additional development outside the City's Future Growth Areas would be considered subject to amendment of the City's SOI and annexation of such areas to the City. The GSA MOU also includes a set of points of agreement that govern future annexations and associated development. Among other topics, the points of agreement address the future direction of City growth, agricultural mitigation, traffic impacts, and storm drainage. The GSA MOU states that the direction of future growth of the City shall be to the north and east of the current city limits, except as otherwise provided for in the GSA MOU.
21 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations To minimize and mitigate the potential impacts, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented the following two mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure LU5 requires the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the GSA-MOU, which directs that City growth generally to the north and east away from the most productive farmland; and Mitigation Measure LU6 requires the City to encourage City-centered growth and give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands. The City will also establish an incentive program to promote these kinds of projects, such as priority permit processing and density bonuses for such developments. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

The City certified this 2007 Supplemental EIR and approved annexation of the North of Boronda FGA, which includes the Central Area Specific Plan. The Central Area Specific Plan is consistent with the GSA‐MOU. All development under the project would be required to comply with the above‐referenced regulations, policies, and standards.

Greater Salinas Area Plan
The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that implementation of General Plan will result in development outside the existing City limits, into the Greater Salinas Planning Area. Development occurring outside of the City limits is subject to the Greater Salinas Area Plan. The 2002 Final EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan may conflict with the Greater Salinas Area Plan, resulting in a significant impact.

To minimize and mitigate the potential impacts that could result from such a potential conflict, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented Mitigation Measure LU2, which requires the City to be consistent with a portion of Draft Policy LU 3.4 of the Monterey County Draft General Plan, and to cooperate with LAFCO and the County of Monterey to direct growth outside the City limits to the Future Growth Area, on lands that are served, or are planned to be served, with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, an extensive road network, public transit, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails, and open space. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

The City certified this EIR and approved annexation of the North of Boronda Future Growth Area, which includes the Specific Plan. The Central Area Specific Plan is consistent with the 22 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Greater Salinas Area Plan. All development under the project would be required to comply with the above-referenced regulations, policies, and standards.

VII. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by, or can and should be adopted by, such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) As explained elsewhere in these findings, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 (court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on project’s objectives); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (CNPS) (an alternative “‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”) (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.309, p. 825); 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”] (Citizens for Open Government); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) (“[i]n the CALFED program, 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 23 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal).) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 (after weighing “‘economic, environmental, social, and technological factors,’ ... ‘an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground) (quoting Kostka, supra, § 17.29, p. 824); and San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 (San Diego) [same].) For purposes of these findings (including the table described in Section IX below), the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level.

As explained above, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. With respect to a proposed project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found that the project’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City of Salinas’ Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project is included herein in Section XI below.

VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (hereinafter “MMRP”) has been prepared for the project, and is being approved by the City Council by Resolution 2020-__(N.C.S.). The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final MMRP is Exhibit “B” of the aforementioned resolution and is approved in conjunction with these Findings of Fact. 24 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the project will cause or contribute to. Most of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects, however, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, and thus will be significant and unavoidable. Some of these unavoidable significant effects can be substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other significant, unavoidable effects cannot be substantially lessened or avoided. For reasons set forth in Section XI, however, the City Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh all of these significant, unavoidable effects of the project.

The City Council’s findings with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA Findings attached to these findings. The findings set forth in the table are hereby incorporated by reference.

This table does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the table provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR or Final EIR and adopted by the City Council, and states the City Council’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft and Final EIRs, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussions and analyses in those documents and their appendices supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Draft EIR and Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

By Resolution 2020-__(N.C.S.), the City Council adopts all of the mitigation measures identified in the table.

X. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Basis for Analysis of the Feasibility of Alternatives As noted in Section VII above, Public Resources Code section 21002, a key provision of CEQA, provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” 25 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the lead agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.

Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 981, 999, 1001; Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 [“[a]lthough the City ultimately rejected these alternatives as ‘infeasible,’ this conclusion does not imply these alternatives were improperly included for discussion”; “[a]lternatives included in an EIR need only be ‘potentially feasible’”]; Citizens for Open Government, supra, 296 Cal.App.4th at pp. 314-315.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; and San Diego, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible.

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]” The project objectives are set out above in section III.C. Based on the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 and the Project’s Objectives, the following alternatives to the project were identified:

No Project (No Build) Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (No Build) Alternative assumes that development of the Specific Plan Area would not occur, and the Specific Plan Area would remain in its current agricultural condition. It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Central Area Specific Plan and is inconsistent with the goals of the General Plan for the future growth areas of the City.

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, 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 (see DEIR Figure 5.0-1 for further detail). 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 26 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Plan Area under this alternative, while retaining the same number of residences, mixed use commercial areas, schools, parks, etc. as the project.

Under this alternative, the average residential density (units per net acre) would increase from approximately 9.0 to 10.3 units/acre. It is assumed that the number of Neighborhood Edge (NE) parcels would be reduced, and the number of Neighborhood General (NG) parcels would increase. The proposed Village Center would remain unchanged under this alternative.

Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative Under this alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with a reduction in the overall residential intensity/density while maintaining the approximate overall project footprint. For the purposes of discussion, this option considers a 25 percent reduction in the intensity/density of the residential components of the project while maintaining the approximately 760-acre project footprint. This would result in fewer residential lots, but larger lot sizes. This alternative would result in up to approximately 2,933 residential units. This alternative would retain the same square feet of mixed commercial uses as in the project, the three proposed schools, and the same acreage of parks, public facility uses, and detention basins as the project.

Under this alternative, the average residential density (units per net acre) would decrease to less than 9.0 units/acre. This alternative is expected to be inconsistent with the Salinas General Plan’s standards for the Plan Area, which require the incorporation of New Urbanism concepts, which mandate that new residential development have a minimum average density of 9.0 dwelling units per net residential acre. This alternative is also expected to be inconsistent with the minimum of 3,275 dwelling units as specified in the Salinas General Plan. These standards would be modified with a General Plan amendment.

Smaller-scale Project Alternative
Under this alternative, the Plan Area would be reduced by approximately 33 percent and the residential and non-residential uses in the project would also be reduced by approximately 33 percent. For the purposes of discussion, this alternative assumes that approximately 253 acres of land along the entire eastern boundary of the Plan Area would be removed and remain as undeveloped agricultural land. The resultant Plan Area under this alternative would be approximately 508 acres in size, and include up to approximately 2,655 residential units. The land area for commercial, public facility, and open space land uses would also be reduced by approximately 33% compared with the project, and include the resizing and relocation of land uses, as needed. The residential densities under this alternative would be similar to those of the project.

1. Significant, Unavoidable Impacts of the Project
The significant and unavoidable impacts of the project are set out in detail below in Section XI.A.

2. Scope of Necessary Findings and Considerations for Project Alternatives 27 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations As noted above, these findings address whether the various alternatives substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the project and also consider the feasibility of each alternative. Under CEQA, “[f]easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15364). As explained earlier, the concept of feasibility permits agency decision makers to consider the extent to which an alternative is able to meet some or all of a project’s objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence.

In identifying potentially feasible alternatives to the project, the following project objectives were considered:
• Preserving and minimizing the disruption of agricultural lands and to achieve the other benefits of compact urban design, by requiring new neighborhoods to achieve a minimum average density of nine (9) units per net residential developable acre, exclusive of open space, parks, schools, streets and other non-developable areas, through a mix of low, medium and high densities in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan; • 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;
• Creating a community that is visually distinguishable from other communities, with a sense of place and identity for its residents reflective of TND design principles; • Creating a center that brings together commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses and serves as a focus for community life;
• Providing ample opportunities for outdoor recreation with open spaces, schools and parks being fronted by streets or public spaces and not privatized behind backyards; • Creating attractive, safe, distinctive residential neighborhoods with as many discrete lot sizes and housing types as possible and a Village Center with a “Main Street” and mixed use commercial area that promotes CPTED design principles and contributes to the overall vitality, image and identity of the City;
• Limiting new public infrastructure requiring ongoing maintenance via Maintenance Districts to ensure sustainability; and
• Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan.

As noted near the beginning of these findings, moreover, the City is keenly aware that the State Legislature has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California 28 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Government Code section 65589.5.) The Legislature notes that “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” The Legislature further found that, “[a]mong the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” The legislative intent set forth in Government Code section 65589.5 is to “significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.” The Legislature established its policy direction in the statute as follows: “It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” The following two overarching project objectives are therefore presented here as a response to:
1) the Legislature’s declaration of a housing crisis in California, 2) the Legislature’s policy direction for the provision of more housing, 3) the Salinas City Council’s more than 30 years of planning for urban development within the FGAs, which includes the Central Area Specific Plan, and 4) the Salinas City Council’s policy direction as provided in the approved FGAs and General Plan:
• Objective 1: Respond to the State Legislature’s declaration of a housing crisis in California, and the policy direction that local governmental agencies provide more housing, by including provisions for the construction of new housing supply within the Central Area Specific Plan.
• Objective 2: Respond to the Salinas City Council’s long-term vision and policy direction for new urban development to be focused in the Future Growth Areas, by including provisions the construction of new urban development consistent with the City of Salinas General Plan.

B. No Project (No Build) Alternative
In general, a CEQA “No Project Alternative” must “discuss the existing conditions …, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (e)(2).) When the proposed project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the “no project” alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. In such an instance, the no project alternative consists of evaluating the projected impacts of the proposed plan to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan. “Typically, this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan 29 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan. (Id., subd. (e)(3)(A).)

1. Analysis of No Project (No Build) Alternative’s Ability to Reduce Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts
Air Quality
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would not be developed, and there would be no net change in emissions and no potential for a conflict with any adopted plans or policies related to air quality. As such, the project level and cumulative impacts would be greatly reduced when compared to the project.

Biological Resources
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Central Area Specific Plan would not be constructed, no habitat would be removed, no wetlands disturbed, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. The Plan Area would remain open to migration, foraging, nesting, and other uses by wildlife. Therefore, potential for impacts to biological resources would be eliminated under the No Project (No Build) Alternative. Impacts to biological resources would be reduced as compared to the project.

Cultural Resources
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would continue to result in ground disturbing activities associated with the agricultural operations (i.e., soil tilling); however, because the ground disturbance associated with farming has occurred for an extended period of time with no cultural resources being found, it is anticipated that the continuation of these operations under this alternative would have a significantly reduced potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Central Area Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in slightly less potential for impacts to cultural resources as the entire Plan Area would continue to be used for agriculture production.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Plan Area would not be developed, and there would be no net change in emissions and no potential for a conflict with any adopted plans or policies related to GHG reductions. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the project. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the No Project Alternative represents a better long-term policy outcome for climate than the project. California has a large housing need, and new housing will have to be built somewhere, if not on the project site. As the California Supreme Court explained, “[g]iven the reality of growth, some greenhouse gas emissions from new housing and commercial developments are inevitable. The critical CEQA question is the cumulative significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, and from a climate change 30 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations point of view it does not matter where in the state those emissions are produced.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 220-221.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, no new land uses would be introduced to the Plan Area, and the potential for hazardous material release in the Plan Area would be reduced.

Ongoing pesticide use would occur within the area to remain in agriculture, and this has the potential to generate negative health effects on existing residents located in the areas south and west of the Plan Area. However, there would not be long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, because development would not occur. While the Central Area Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in less potential for impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, potential new water quality impacts from construction and operation of the Central Area Specific Plan would be eliminated. Under this alternative, the land would be kept in its present state with the majority of the Plan Area either fallow land or being used for agricultural purposes. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would have a greater chance of groundwater recharge because it does not introduce large areas of impervious surfaces as would the Central Area Specific Plan. However, the beneficial impact of reducing consumptive use of water by the project in comparison the existing scenario would not exist. This is a significant contribution in reducing overdraft in the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin.

The potential to result in the violation of water quality standards would be reduced under this alternative as compared with the project. However, there are some instances where the No Project (No Build) Alternative would have greater discharges of certain pollutants (such as erosion, sedimentation, pesticides release, etc.) when compared to the project. Nevertheless, overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under this alternative.

Noise
Existing agricultural activities within the Plan Area sometimes involve on-going noise sources such as agricultural equipment (i.e., tractors, harvesters, planters, etc.). Such noise sources are part of the existing ambient noise levels in the Plan Area. Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Plan Area would not be developed and there would be no potential for new noise sources; however, existing noise from agricultural operations would continue. As such, this alternative would have less impact relative to the project.

Population and Housing
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Plan Area would not be developed and the Plan Area would not accommodate the City’s anticipated growth. Growth would still be anticipated to 31 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations occur within the region, but it would not be accommodated in the FGA, which has undergone extensive planning efforts by the City and community for over a decade. This would not be consistent with the FGA and General Plan. The City would need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to develop for new housing, which would be expected to have environmental impacts that have not yet been assessed, but could well be worse than those of the Central Area Specific Plan, particularly with respect to prime agricultural land, which is abundant in the region. Overall, this alternative would have a greater impact when compared to the project.

Public Services
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, there would be no increased demand for police, fire, schools, parks, or other public services. Alternatively, this alternative would result in no new school or park facilities, which are designed to accommodate more than the demand that is generated by the Central Area Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the project.

Transportation and Circulation
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, there would be no new traffic generated within the Plan Area. This alternative would also not result in new traffic improvements on the City’s roadway system and it would not result in payments of traffic impact fees into the City’s CIP program that would be used for the roadway system. Existing deficiencies in the traffic system would not receive the benefit of improvements to improve existing deficiencies; however, this would be more than offset by the fact that there would be no new contribution to degrading traffic levels of service at a project and cumulative level. Still, the growth for which there is market demand would still be anticipated to occur somewhere else within the region, possibly in areas that could result in LOS-related transportation effects worse than those of the Central Area Specific Plan (though LOS is no longer an issue under CEQA [see DEIR, pp. 3.10-7 – 3.10-9]).

Overall, this alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the project.

Utilities
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Plan Area would not have an increased demand for wastewater, storm drainage, or solid waste disposal. There would be no new impacts on these utilities and there would be no need to construct new infrastructure. Therefore, overall, the impact on wastewater, solid waste, and storm drainage would be reduced under this alternative.

In conclusion, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not result in a beneficial impact to groundwater recharge. However, this alternative would decrease the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated at the site, and would not require construction of new utilities infrastructure. Overall, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not add new impacts to wastewater, storm drainage, or solid waste disposal systems, but would not result in the beneficial impacts to the groundwater system.

2. Feasibility of No Project (No Build) Alternative
32 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations The No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it results in the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the project. However, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Central Area Specific Plan and is inconsistent with the goals of the General Plan for the future growth areas of the City.

The City Council finds the No Project (No Build) Alternative to be infeasible for the above stated reasons, and rejects it as a feasible and viable alternative to the Project.

C. Reduced Land Area Project Alternative

1. Analysis of Reduced Land Area Project Alternative’s Ability to Reduce Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts
Air Quality
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with an approximately fourteen percent smaller development area, with an overall increase in residential density. Although the project footprint would be reduced, criteria pollutant emissions as modeled by CalEEMod would be extremely similar to (though potentially slightly less than) the project under this scenario.

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) 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 that of the project.

Biological Resources
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, less habitat would be removed, and fewer ground disturbing activities would occur. A portion of the Plan Area (approximately fourteen percent) would remain open to migration, foraging, nesting, and other uses by wildlife. The balance of the Plan Area (approximately eight-six percent of site) would be developed and no longer available for migration, foraging, nesting, and other uses by wildlife. This would still be a significant and unavoidable impact, and would be cumulatively considerable.

When compared to the project, potential for impacts to biological resources would be reduced under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative proportionate to the reduction in developed area estimated at fourteen percent.
33 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural Resources
The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would result in fewer ground disturbing activities and would have a slightly reduced potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would result in slightly less potential for impacts to cultural resources, as a portion of the Plan Area would remain undeveloped.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would not develop approximately 110 acres that is proposed to be developed under the project. Estimated mitigated operational GHG emissions at Specific Plan Area buildout are shown in Table 5.0-3 of the Draft EIR. As shown, total operational emissions would be reduced slightly reduced under this scenario, as compared to the project (as modeled). However, Specific Plan Area operational activities under this alternative would be expected to generate a significant and unavoidable impact on operational greenhouse gases.

With a total projected service population of 15,087 (same as the project), this alternative would generate approximately 2.66 MT CO2e/service population/year in the mitigated scenario (in Year 2040). This value is above the derived per capita GHG threshold of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year for Year 2040. However, this value is the same as the mitigated per service population estimate for the project of 2.66 MT CO2e/service population/year (in Year 2040). It should also be noted, however, that construction emissions under this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the project, given the reduced residential intensity/density of this alternative compared to that of the project. Therefore, the emissions per capita under this alternative would be slightly reduced as compared with those of the project. Overall, this impact would be slightly reduced when compared to that of the project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the land area to be developed would be reduced by approximately fourteen percent and the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would be reduced proportionately. Ongoing pesticide use would occur within the area to remain in agriculture, and this would have the potential to generate negative health effects on new residents in the development. Similar to the project, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required.

While the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with hazards and 34 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations hazardous materials, the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would result in slightly less potential for impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Central Area Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Central Area Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the project would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Central Area Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, potential water quality impacts from operation of the project would be increased. Under this alternative, the developed area would be reduced by approximately fourteen percent when compared with the project. The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have a greater chance of groundwater recharge because it would reduce the amount of impervious surfaces by approximately fourteen percent as compared to the Central Area Specific Plan. The areas that would not be developed (i.e., the 110 acres of land in the northwest corner of the Specific Plan Area) would remain under agricultural production.

However, while the 110-acre agricultural area would provide opportunities for groundwater recharge, the agricultural uses would continue to require intensive groundwater pumping for the agricultural production, which would exceed any benefit related to groundwater recharge. The higher amount of groundwater pumping required for the 110-acres of agricultural use under this alternative (as compared with developed uses) would result in a greater impact on the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin, when compared to that of the project. Alternatively stated, the overall amount of consumptive water usage reduced by this alternative would not be equal to or greater than the reduction under the project. This would increase risks to the groundwater basin associated with seawater intrusion, when compared to the project.

Furthermore, under this alternative, there are some instances where the undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan Area would have greater discharges of certain pollutants (such as erosion, sedimentation, pesticides release, etc.) when compared to the project.

For these reasons, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be increased under this alternative when compared to those of the project.

Noise
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, development would be reduced by fourteen percent when compared with the project. As a result of less development, noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would be expected to be reduced under this alternative. Receptors would be subject to ongoing agricultural noise under this alternative. It is 35 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations noted that, despite this reduction in the size of development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact. As such, this alternative would have a reduced impact relative to the project.

Population and Housing
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the project footprint development would be reduced by approximately fourteen percent when compared with the project. However, although the residential density would increase from approximately 9.0 to 10.3 residential units per acre under this alternative, the number of residences developed under this alternative would be the same as for the project. Therefore, this alternative would have an equal impact when compared to the project.

Public Services
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the development area would be reduced by approximately fourteen percent. Residential and non-residential development would not be reduced under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative; therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be equal. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e. schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety impact fees. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to public services when compared to the project.

Transportation
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the development area would be reduced by approximately fourteen percent. Residential and non-residential development would be equal under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative; therefore, traffic generated in the Specific Plan Area would be equal. This alternative would still result in new traffic improvements on the City’s roadway system to accommodate the new traffic generated. It would also still result in payments of traffic impact fees into the City’s CIP program that would be used for the roadway system. Existing deficiencies in the traffic system would receive some benefit of improvements to improve existing deficiencies.

The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have “slightly greater” impact with respect to Transportation and Circulation Impact 3.10-7, which is identified as “impacts related to emergency access.” The basis for this determination is that the increased density of the project would increase congestion on existing and planned roadways as compared to the project, given that fewer roadways would be developed under this alternative. Congestion is also expected to be slightly higher under this alternative compared to the project, given the increased density of traffic (based on fewer roadway miles being developed under this alternative compared with the project), and the increased density of the project (to 10.3 residential units per acre under this alternative, compared to 9.0 residential units per acre under the project). This represents a slightly greater impact with respect to emergency access within the Specific Plan Area. It is noted that the significance determination under Transportation and Circulation Impact 3.10-7 would likely still be less than significant for the Reduced Land Area Alternative, similar to the 36 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations project; however, the roadway network will not have the same capacity as under the project so the determination remains “slightly greater.”
Additionally, the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would have a “slightly greater” impact with respect to Transportation and Circulation Impact 3.10-8, which is identified as “conflict with adopted multi-modal circulation policies, plans, or programs” or a “decrease [in] the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.” Therefore, connectivity with the remainder of the City and County, including other areas within the City’s FGA, would be more limited under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative as compared to the project. Nevertheless, overall, this alternative would have slightly greater traffic impacts than the project.

Utilities
Under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, the development area would be reduced by fourteen percent. The total quantity of infrastructure installed would be reduced, but the demand for wastewater and solid waste services would be approximately the same as for the project, given that the number of residential and non-residential users of such utilities would remain the same under this alternative as in the project. That is, it is expected that this alternative would generate approximately 1.18 MGD of wastewater and approximately 44,171 lbs/day of solid waste, similar to the project, since this alternative would generate approximately the same number of residents and workers as the project would.

Separately, the total storm drainage runoff under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, due to the reduction in impervious surfaces.

Implementation of the project could result in potentially significant impacts to the utility systems, including wastewater, water, storm water drainage, and solid waste providers.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that capacity is available and any impacts from increased demand are reduced.

Although this alternative would save less groundwater than the project, generate a similar amount of solid waste, and demand a similar amount of water, this alternative would reduce impacts to stormwater compared to the project. Overall, the demand for utilities would be reduced under this alternative when compared to the project.

2. Feasibility of Reduced Land Area Project Alternative The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG and climate change, hazards, hydrology, noise, public services, and transportation compared to the project. However, this alternative would potentially worsen impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge (cumulative and project-level), emergency vehicle access, and conflicts with adopted multi-modal circulation policies, plans, or programs. Further, this alternative does not meet the following project objectives:
37 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • 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;
• Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan.

The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative would not meet the objective to “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” 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.

The Reduced Land Area Project Alternative does not fully meet the project objective of “Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan” because the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative is not consistent with development as outlined in the General Plan.

Under this alternative, approximately 110 acres of land in the northwest corner of the Plan Area would be removed (APNs 211-013-007, 211-013-010, 211-013-011, and 211-013-012). The resultant Plan Area would include approximately 652 acres (see Figure 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR for further detail). The effect of this area not developing in accordance with the General Plan would be that the following roadways and infrastructure improvements would not be developed:
• Natividad Road (Major Arterial) expansion frontage improvements; • Russell Road (Major Arterial) expansion;
• Various park and school uses.

Therefore, based on the above list of roadways and infrastructure improvements that would not be developed under this alternative, the ability of the City to provide public services and infrastructure improvements in accordance with the adopted General Plan would be hampered under the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative.

Ultimately, the significant and unavoidable environmental effects anticipated with the project would still occur under this Reduced Land Area Project Alternative due to the location, size and scope of the alternative. The significant and unavoidable impacts may occur to a lesser extent than under the project under this alternative, but the impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. For example, a significant and unavoidable impact related to increased traffic noise levels at existing receptors would occur under the project and the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative, as there is a possibility of not being able to feasibly install sounds walls in some locations that would be warranted. It is noted that, due to decreased noise levels associated with this alternative, the noise at existing receptors would likely decrease. However, the cumulative 38 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations traffic noise level increases would exceed the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) CEQA substantial increase criteria of 1.5 to 5 dB.

The City Council finds the Reduced Land Area Project Alternative to be infeasible for the above stated reasons, and rejects it as a feasible and viable alternative to the project.

D. Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative

1. Analysis of Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative’s Ability to Reduce Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts Air Quality
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, there would be a 25 percent reduction in the intensity/density of the residential portions of the Plan Area, with an overall decrease in residential density.

Overall criteria pollutant emissions under this alternative would be reduced by approximately

23.9% when compared to the project. However, as shown in Table 5.0-4 of the Draft EIR, project operational activities under this alternative would still exceed the threshold of significance and generate a significant and unavoidable impact for ROG, NOx, and PM10 at buildout.

Although less compact development generally increases overall per capita vehicle miles travelled (VMT), the smaller number of residential units under this alternative as compared with the project would reduce overall air quality emissions, including under area sources, mobile sources, and energy sources. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the project.

Biological Resources
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, an equivalent amount of habitat would be removed as under the project, and a similar level of ground disturbing activities would occur as compared with the project. Therefore, there would be an approximately equal potential for impacts to biological resources under this alternative as compared with the project.

Cultural Resources
The Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would result in a similar level of ground disturbing activities and would have a similar potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would result in an equal potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
39 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, there would be an approximately 25 percent reduction in the intensity/density of the residential portions of the Plan Area. Estimated mitigated operational GHG emissions at Plan Area buildout are shown in Table

5.0-5 of the Draft EIR (as modeled in CalEEMod). As shown, total operational emissions would be reduced by approximately 22.5% under this scenario, as compared to the project. However, Plan Area operational activities under this alternative would be expected to generate a significant and unavoidable impact associated with operational greenhouse gases.

With a total projected service population of 11,499 under this alternative (this is equivalent to a 25% smaller residential population but the same number of workers, when compared to the project), this alternative would generate approximately 2.71 MT CO2e/service population/year in the mitigated scenario (in Year 2040). This value is above the derived per capita GHG threshold of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year for Year 2040 and above the per service population estimate for the project of 2.66 MT CO2e/service population/year (in Year 2040). It should also be noted, however, that construction emissions under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, given the reduced residential intensity/density of this alternative compared to the project. Therefore, this impact would be reduced when compared to the project.

It is worth noting that California has a large housing need, and new housing will have to be built somewhere, if not on the project site. As the California Supreme Court explained, “[g]iven the reality of growth, some greenhouse gas emissions from new housing and commercial developments are inevitable. The critical CEQA question is the cumulative significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, and from a climate change point of view it does not matter where in the state those emissions are produced.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 220-221.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, the land area to be developed would not change in comparison to the project, and therefore the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would not be reduced.

Similar to the project, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. The Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would result in equal potential for such impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, potential water quality impacts from construction and operation would be slightly reduced. Under this alternative, the intensity/density of the residential uses would be reduced by 25 percent when compared with the project, although the footprint would remain the same. This would result in fewer residential lots, 40 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations but larger lot sizes. Since the residential lot sizes under this alternative would be larger than those of the project, there would be less impervious surface, and therefore there would be a greater chance of groundwater recharge under this alternative. As such, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the Reduced Intensity/Density Alternative when compared to the project.

Noise
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, the intensity/density of the residential uses would be reduced by 25 percent when compared with that of the project. As a result of less development, noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would be expected to be reduced under this alternative. Despite this reduction in the size of intensity of development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact. As such, this alternative would have less impact relative to the project.

Population and Housing
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, the intensity/density of the residential uses would be reduced by 25 percent when compared with the project. Development of housing would still occur under this alternative, but fewer units would be built. The City has undergone extensive planning efforts for over a decade to establish areas that are appropriate for new housing stock to meet the anticipated growth and demand for housing. Currently, the City, and the State as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. A reduction of 25 percent of the housing under this alternative would be inconsistent with the desire of the State and City to accommodate the quantity of housing they have anticipated in the FGA to serve the community’s demand for housing. In response to a reduction in housing stock under this alternative, it would be anticipated that City may need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to supply housing stock to meet the regional demand and the State’s directive.

This assumption is based entirely on the fact that California, and specifically the City of Salinas, is having a housing shortage and an appropriate response to a shortage is to provide additional housing supply. The lower density of this alternative would also not meet the minimum number of residential units required for New Urbanism principles that are established in the General Plan for the Plan Area. Overall, this alternative would have a greater impact when compared to the project.

Public Services
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, the intensity/density of the residential uses would be reduced by 25 percent; therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be reduced. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e., schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety 41 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations impact fees. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the project.

Transportation and Circulation
Under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, the intensity/density of the residential uses would be reduced by 25 percent; therefore, traffic generated in the Plan Area would be reduced. This alternative would still result in new traffic improvements on the City’s roadway system to accommodate the new traffic generated. It would also still result in payments of traffic impact fees into the City’s CIP program that would be used for the roadway system.

Existing deficiencies in the traffic system would receive some benefit of improvements to improve existing deficiencies; however, there would still be significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts under this alternative (though traffic level of service is no longer an issue under CEQA [see DEIR, pp. 3.10-7 – 3.10-9]). Overall, this alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the project.

Utilities
Under the Reduced Intensity/Density Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with a reduction in the overall residential intensity/density while maintaining the approximate overall project footprint as in the project. For the purposes of discussion, this option considers a 25 percent reduction in the intensity/density of the residential components of the project while maintaining the approximately 760-acre project footprint. This would result in fewer residential lots, but larger lot sizes. This alternative would result in up to 2,933 residential units. This alternative would retain the same non-residential uses as in the project.

The total quantity of infrastructure installed would not be reduced, but the demand for wastewater and solid waste services would be less than would be required for the project. For example, it is expected that this alternative would generate approximately 0.89 MGD of wastewater (a 25% reduction in wastewater compared with the 1.18 MGD for the project) and approximately 33,128 lbs/day of solid waste (a 25% reduction in solid waste compared with the 44,171 lbs/day of solid waste for the project), a smaller amount than would be generated by the project, since this alternative would generate fewer residents when compared to the project.

Separately, the total storm drainage runoff under this alternative would be approximately the same when compared to the project, due to the project footprint remaining the same for this alternative when compared to the project. Additionally, this alternative would save approximately the same amount of groundwater when compared to the project, since the project footprint would remain the same for this alternative as compared to the project.

Overall, the demand for wastewater and solid waste services would be less than would be required for the project, and the amount of storm drainage runoff would be approximately the same. Therefore, demand for utilities would be slightly reduced under this alternative when compared to the project.
42 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations

2. Feasibility of Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative The Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, GHG and climate change, hazards and hazardous resources, hydrology, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities compared to the project. However, this alternative would potentially worsen impacts related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans and population and housing. Further, this alternative does not meet the following project objectives:
• Preserving and minimizing the disruption of agricultural lands and to achieve the other benefits of compact urban design, by requiring new neighborhoods to achieve a minimum average density of nine (9) units per net residential developable acre, exclusive of open space, parks, schools, streets and other non-developable areas, through a mix of low, medium and high densities in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan; • Providing ample opportunities for outdoor recreation with open spaces, schools and parks being fronted by streets or public spaces and not privatized behind backyards; • Creating attractive, safe, distinctive residential neighborhoods with as many discrete lot sizes and housing types as possible and a Village Center with a “Main Street” and mixed use commercial area that promotes CPTED design principles and contributes to the overall vitality, image and identity of the City;
• Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan.

The Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative does not fully meet the project objective to “Preserving and minimizing the disruption of agricultural lands and to achieve the other benefits of compact urban design, by requiring new neighborhoods to achieve a minimum average density of nine (9) units per net residential developable acre, exclusive of open space, parks, schools, streets and other non-developable areas, through a mix of low, medium and high densities in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan” because this alternative would not achieve a minimum average density of nine (9) units per net residential developable acre, exclusive of open space, parks, schools, streets and other non-developable areas. Therefore, this alternative would not meet this objective.

This alternative would not achieve the project objective of “Providing ample opportunities for outdoor recreation with open spaces, schools and parks being fronted by streets or public spaces and not privatized behind backyards” because this alternative would limit the number of opportunities for outdoor recreation, since it would result in larger private yards and fewer areas for public outdoor recreation than the project.

This alternative would not achieve the project objective of “Creating attractive, safe, distinctive residential neighborhoods with as many discrete lot sizes and housing types as possible and a Village Center with a ‘Main Street’ and mixed use commercial area that promotes CPTED design principles and contributes to the overall vitality, image and identity of the City” because this alternative would make the resulting Specific Plan less compact, thereby reducing the diversity of lot sizes and housing types as compared with those of the project. This alternative does not meet this objective because it would not create “as many discrete lot sizes and housing types as possible.”
43 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Furthermore, the reduction in housing units under the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would be less consistent than the project in meeting statewide legislative goals of building housing units in order to address the statewide housing crisis. Given the enormous unmet demand for housing in California, the City believes that it has an obligation to facilitate the construction of more, rather than fewer, housing units when opportunities for residential development arise. The Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative, then, represents a policy outcome that the City Council considers undesirable.

Lastly, this alternative would not achieve the project objective of “Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan” because this alternative would not be consistent with the development as outlined as the General Plan.

Ultimately, the significant and unavoidable environmental effects that are anticipated with the project would still occur under this Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative due to the location, size and scope of the alternative. The significant and unavoidable impacts may occur to a lesser extent under this alternative than under the project, but the impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. For example, a significant and unavoidable impact related to violation of an air quality standard would occur under both the project and the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative. As shown in Table 5.0-4 of Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR, the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative would exceed the threshold of significance for ROG, NOx, and PM10 at buildout. Although the emissions would be less than with the project, this alternative would also cause a violation of an air quality standard. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

The City Council finds the Reduced Residential Intensity/Density Project Alternative to be infeasible for the above stated reasons, and rejects it as a feasible and viable alternative to the project.

E. Smaller Scale Project Alternative

1. Analysis of Smaller Scale Project’s Ability to Reduce Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts
Air Quality
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the overall size of the project would be scaled down by approximately 33 percent as compared with the project. This would reduce Plan Area operational emissions by an approximately equivalent amount (33%) as compared to those of the project. However, as shown in Table 5.0-6 of the Draft EIR, project operational activities under this alternative would still exceed the threshold of significance and generate a significant and unavoidable impact for NOx and PM10 at buildout.

Nevertheless, overall air quality emissions under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, due to the smaller size of this alternative, including for area sources, mobile sources, and energy sources. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the project.

Biological Resources
44 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, an area of about 253 acres would not be developed, and fewer ground disturbing activities would occur. It is still anticipated that the drainage ditches along Boronda would be eliminated (i.e., fill activity). The 253 acres would remain open to migration, foraging, nesting, and other uses by wildlife. The balance of the Plan Area would be developed and no longer available for migration, foraging, nesting, and other uses by wildlife.

This would still be a significant and unavoidable impact, and would be cumulatively considerable.

When compared to the Specific Plan, potential for impacts to biological resources would be reduced under the Smaller-scale Alternative proportionate to the reduction in developed area.

Cultural Resources
The Smaller-scale Project Alternative would result in a reduced level of ground disturbing activities and would therefore have slightly less potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, this alternative would result in slightly less potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The Smaller-scale Project Alternative would reduce the level of development by approximately 33 percent as compared with the project. This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount (33%) when compared to those of the project.

Estimated mitigation operational GHG emissions at Plan Area buildout for this alternative are shown in Table 5.0-7 of the Draft EIR. As shown, total operational emissions would be reduced by approximately 33% under this scenario, as compared to those of the project. However, Plan Area operational activities under this alternative would be expected to generate a significant and unavoidable impact on operational greenhouse gases.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the land area and to be developed would be reduced by approximately 33 percent and the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would be reduced proportionately. Ongoing pesticide use would occur within the area to remain in agriculture, and this would have the potential to generate negative health effects on new residents in the development. Similar to the project, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when contaminants above certain thresholds are found.

There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. While the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, the Smaller-scale Project Alternative would result in slightly less potential for impacts.
45 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, potential water quality impacts from construction and operation would be reduced. Under this alternative, the overall level of development (including the size of the site and the overall development area per use) would be reduced by approximately 33 percent. An area of approximately 253 acres that would be developed as part of the project would not be developed as part of this alternative. The areas that would not be developed would remain under agricultural production, and while they would have better recharge in those areas, they would continue to require intensive groundwater pumping for the agricultural production. The higher amount of groundwater pumping under this alternative would result in a greater impact on the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin, when compared to that of the project. There would still be some benefit on the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin under this alternative because 66 percent of the land area would be converted into a use that would not require intensive groundwater pumping.

There are some instances where the 253 acres of Plan Area that remain undeveloped would have greater discharges of certain pollutants (such as erosion, sedimentation, pesticides release, etc.) when compared to those of the project. Additionally, overall, while the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards would be reduced under this alternative when compared with that of the project, overdraft conditions would worsen in the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin under this alternative when compared to the project. As such, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be increased under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative when compared to the project.

Noise
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the overall level of development would be reduced by 33 percent as compared with the project. As a result of less development, noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would be expected to be reduced under this alternative. Despite this reduction in the size of intensity of development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact. As such, this alternative would have less impact relative to the project.

Population and Housing
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the overall level of development would be reduced by 33 percent as compared with the project. Development of housing would still occur under this alternative, but fewer units would be built. Growth would still be anticipated to occur within the region, but it would not be fully accommodated in the FGA, which has undergone extensive planning efforts by the City and community for over a decade. This would not be consistent with the FGA and General Plan. The City would need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to develop for new housing, which would be expected to have environmental impacts that have not yet been assessed but could well be worse than those of the project, particularly with respect 46 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations to prime agricultural land, which is abundant in the region. Overall, this alternative would have a greater impact when compared to the project.

Public Services
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the overall level of development and the number of residential/non-residential uses would be reduced by 33 percent; therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be reduced. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e., schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety impact fees. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the project.

Transportation and Circulation
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the overall level of development and the number of residential/non-residential uses would be reduced by 33 percent; therefore, traffic generated in the Plan Area would be reduced. This alternative would still result in new traffic improvements on the City’s roadway system to accommodate the new traffic generated. It would also still result in payments of traffic impact fees into the City’s CIP program that would be used for the roadway system. Existing deficiencies in the traffic system would receive some benefit of improvements to improve existing deficiencies; however, there would still be significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts (though traffic level of service is no longer an issue under CEQA [see DEIR, pp. 3.10-7 – 3.10-9]). Overall, this alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the project.

Utilities
Under the Smaller-scale Project Alternative, the Plan Area would be reduced by approximately 33 percent and the proposed residential and non-residential uses would also be reduced by approximately 33 percent. For the purposes of discussion, this alternative assumes that approximately 253 acres of land along the entire eastern boundary of the Plan Area would be removed and remain as undeveloped agricultural land. The resultant Plan Area under this alternative would be approximately 508 acres in size, and include up to 2,655 residential units.

Additionally, the land area for commercial, public facility, and open space land uses would also be reduced by approximately 33% compared with the project, and include the resizing and relocation of land uses, as needed. The residential densities under this alternative would be similar to the project.

The total quantity of infrastructure installed would be reduced, and the demand for wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste services would be less than would be required for the project. For example, is expected that this alternative would generate approximately 0.79 MGD of wastewater (an approximately 33% reduction in wastewater compared with the 1.18 MGD for the project), and approximately 29,447 lbs/day of solid waste (an approximately 33% reduction in wastewater compared with the 1.18 MGD for the project), less than what would be generated by the project, since this alternative would generate fewer residents when compared to the project.
47 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Separately, the total storm drainage runoff under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 33% when compared to the project, due to the project footprint being reduced by 33% when compared to the project.

However, this alternative would not save as much groundwater when compared to the project.

The project would replace agricultural water uses with urban water uses. An estimated 80% of the land in the Specific Plan Area or 608 acres is presently used to grow irrigated crops – lettuce and various vegetables (strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower, and alfalfa). Estimated groundwater pumping for existing irrigated agricultural use in the Specific Plan Area is 3,648 AFY.

Therefore, conversion of the Plan Area from agricultural to urban land use could result in an estimated reduction of consumptive groundwater use (or increase in groundwater storage) of 1,464 AFY. After taking into account the groundwater recharge of existing agricultural uses, of approximately 1,094 AFY, there is still a net reduction of 370 AFY (2,554 – 2,184 AFY), due to development of the project. This is a significant contribution in reducing overdraft in the Salinas Valley Ground Water basin. This beneficial impact would be lessened under the Smaller-Scale Project Alternative. This would increase risks to the groundwater basin associated with seawater intrusion, when compared to the project. However, in general, the demand for utilities would be reduced under this alternative when compared to that of the project.

2. Feasibility of Smaller-scale Project Alternative
The Smaller-scale Project Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG and climate change, hazards, hydrology, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities compared to the project. However, this alternative would potentially worsen impacts related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans, groundwater supplies and recharge (cumulative and project-level), and population and housing. Further, this alternative does not meet the following project objectives:
• Creating a plan that is consistent with and substantially advances these and other goals, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan; The Smaller-scale Project Alternative does not fully meet this project objective because, similar to the other alternatives, this alternative would not be consistent with development as outlined in the General Plan.

Furthermore, the reduction in housing units under the Smaller Scale Alternative from 3,911 units to 2,655 would be less consistent than the project in meeting statewide legislative goals of building housing units in order to address the statewide housing crisis. Given the enormous unmet demand for housing in California, the City believes that it has an obligation to facilitate the construction of more, rather than fewer, housing units when opportunities for residential development arise. The Smaller Scale Alternative, then, represents a policy outcome that the City Council considers undesirable.

Ultimately, the significant and unavoidable environmental effects anticipated with the project would still occur under this Smaller-scale Project Alternative due to the location, size and scope of the alternative. The significant and unavoidable impacts may occur to a lesser extent under this alternative than under the project, but the impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. 48 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations For example, a significant and unavoidable impact related to violation of an air quality standard would occur under both the project and the Smaller-scale Project Alternative. As shown in Table

5.0-6 of Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR, the Smaller-scale Project Alternative would exceed the threshold of significance for NOx, and PM10 at buildout. Although the emissions would be less than the project, this alternative would also cause a violation of an air quality standard. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

The City Council finds the Smaller- scale Project Alternative to be infeasible for the above stated reasons, and rejects it as a feasible and viable alternative to the project.

XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the preceding sections, the City of Salinas’s approval of the Central Area Specific Plan will result in a significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures; and there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen all of these impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the project because, in the Council’s view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.

A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The project will result in the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
• Air Quality Operation. The Specific Plan would exceed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) thresholds of significance for operations for ROG, NOx, and PM10, even after mitigation. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-28 through 3.1-32) • Cumulative Air Quality. As is currently proposed, the Specific Plan is expected to be built out under a staged approach, and all mitigation would be applicable to each stage.

However, even with the application of mitigation measures, operational emissions levels would remain above the defined thresholds of significance. Exceedance of the threshold within an area designated as nonattainment would be a cumulatively considerable impact. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-44 through 3.1-46)
• Reptiles and Amphibians. Development of the project would impact habitat for California Tiger Salamander (CTS). The project will also indirectly affect this species through habitat modifications or reductions, which will eliminate a breeding site which may reduce the number of, or restrict the range this special status species. Regardless of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation provided in the following mitigation measures, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-37 through

3.2-46)
• Wildlife Movement and Corridors. Development of the project would eliminate any movement habitat through the Specific Plan Area, along with any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors. There are no mitigation measures that can fully mitigate this impact and, given the fact that once the land is converted, it will no longer be a viable migration corridor for any species. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-57 through 3.2-59) 49 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations • Cumulative Biological Resources. Development of the project would eliminate any movement habitat through the Specific Plan Area, along with any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors. Given the rareness of CTS and CRLF in the Bioregion, the incremental loss of movement habitat from the project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of all communities within the Bioregion), is a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact, and the Specific Plan’s incremental contribution to this impact is itself cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp.

3.2-65 through 3.2-68)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. While mitigation measures would result in reduced GHGs, 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. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-34 through 3.4-41) • Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the project will still generate GHG emissions that would not otherwise exist without the project. Given the length of construction activities for a project of this size, the construction emissions would be a maximum annual release of approximately 12,148.7 MT CO2e. The operational emissions would be a long-term release totaling approximately 45,347.1 MT CO2e without any mitigation incorporated and 40,134.3 MT CO2e with mitigation incorporated into the project (as provided by CalEEMod). 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, pp. 3.4-51 through 3.4-52) • Traffic Noise at Existing Receptors. The project would cause increased noise levels exceeding the City of Salinas 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at existing residential receptors. Additionally, traffic noise level increases would exceed the FICON CEQA substantial increase criteria of 1.5 to 5 dB. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-13 through 3.7-22) • Cumulative Noise. The project would cause increased noise levels exceeding the City of Salinas 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at existing residential receptors.

Therefore, there would be a cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to increased noise resulting from cumulative development. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-33 through 3.7-34)
• Fire Facilities. The project would require the construction of fire department facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-20 through 3.9-22)
• School Facilities. Project implementation may result in the need for the construction of new schools, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Development of a school within the Specific Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and circulation (Impacts

3.10-3, and 3.10-4). (DEIR, pp. 3.9-23 through 3.9-31)
• Park Facilities. Project implementation may result in effects on parks, or require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact. Development of park land within the Specific Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, 50 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and 3.10-4). (DEIR, pp. 3.9-31 through 3.9-32) • Other Public Facilitates. Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. The Central Area Specific Plan would result in new demand for public facilities, including library facilities and recreational facilities. The Specific Plan does propose a library and potentially would include other public facilities such as a community building within the Specific Plan Area; therefore, development of these facilities would have a direct physical impact on the environment. Development of public facilities within the Specific Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and 3.10-4) through the development of currently undeveloped sites. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-32 through 3.9-33) • Cumulative Public Facilitates. The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development (including the Central Area Specific Plan Area) could potentially cause significant impacts. Cumulative development, including additional parks, schools, library, and other public facilities within the city and service area, would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and

3.10-4). (DEIR, pp. 3.9-33 through 3.9-35)
B. Overriding Considerations
In the City Council’s judgment, the project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The following statement identifies the specific reasons why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects.

Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section (XI), and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in section V.

1. The project will substantially expand employment opportunities for local residents.

It is anticipated that local employment would be increased to provide administrative, management, and retail services. The project is expected to require both full-time and part-time employees. It is anticipated that the employment growth would be met both by existing residents and through the attraction of new residents. Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) indicates that the City has an unemployment rate of approximately 4.9%, as of November 2018, which is higher than the State and national averages at 4.2% and 3.7%, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). Many of the newly created jobs are expected to be in the 51 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations retail/commercial sector and would be opportunities well-suited for second wage earners in households, the younger workforce, and others, which generally depend on the local workforce.

Due to the fact there is currently a surplus of unemployed workforce within the City, it is likely that current residents would fill the majority of new positions. Additional population growth induced by the creation of new businesses could be supported by the available housing within Salinas as well as new housing planned as part of the Central Area Specific Plan.

The construction of new developments within the Specific Plan Area would increase temporary construction jobs in the area. New employment opportunities are critical to the residents of the City as a basis to reduce the City’s higher than average unemployment rate and to improve the balance between jobs and housing.

The creation of new jobs has a variety of other co-benefits that lead to improved quality of life.

These benefits include enhancing overall economic activity in the City, which leads to increased revenue to fund and maintain city services and facilities such as public safety, parks, recreation centers and libraries and related programs that support a high quality of life. Benefits also include improving community health through crime reduction, improving economic productivity, decreasing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of residents that must travel out of the city to find employment.

1. The project will provide much-needed housing.

One of the core goals of the Specific Plan is to provide a variety of low-density, medium-density, and high-density housing and a variety of housing options for residents at various life stages. As emphasized earlier, the State Legislature has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Government Code section 65589.5.) The Legislature notes that “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” The Legislature further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” The legislative intent expressed in Government Code section 65589.5 is to “significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.” The State Legislature established its policy direction in the statute as follows: “It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.”
52 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations The City of Salinas has recognized the need for additional housing supply for its citizens for many decades. The project will provide much-needed housing in an area of the City that has been recognized and planned for future growth.

2. The project will help attract economic investment.

Currently, Salinas lags behind the region in private economic investment. This lack of investment can be quantified in terms of the number of building permits pulled and the associated building valuation. For example, from June 1, 2018 to June 21, 2019, 1,765 permits with a building valuation of approximately $5,116,481.85 were pulled in Salinas.1 This is a fraction, 10.0 percent, of the private investment in the City of Monterey totaling a valuation of $51,289,904 (422 permits).2 This is especially significant considering Salinas (162,797) has more than five times the population of the City of Monterey (28,448).

The project streamlines opportunities for economic investment in the City by positioning the Specific Plan Area for development. The project creates the land use and zoning entitlements and provides specific guidance about how development is to proceed needed to catalyze economic development in the form of individual development projects.

3. The project will generate sales and property taxes for the City.

According to the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the project (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2018), the project will generate substantial sales tax revenue from the planned commercial and retail uses and property tax revenue from the planned residential uses. The City can use this revenue to fund City programs that benefit the City’s residents. The project has been designated with land uses that are intended to generate jobs and tax revenue for the City, while providing recreational facilities, retail opportunities, and housing opportunities.

4. The project will help improve the quality of life for City residents.

The City is experiencing significant retail leakage to surrounding communities and the region resulting in the loss of sales tax revenue. The 2008 Buxton Retail Leakage and Surplus Analysis, estimated that as much as $250 million in annual retail sales could be recaptured by the City through targeted retail development which offers goods and services now sought from businesses located outside the City. The City’s total revenue per capita figures demonstrate the impacts of this leakage. In 2016, Salinas’ total revenue per capita was $752 dollars compared to Monterey at $2,224 dollars per capita. (California Controller, 2016) The project would include a central core area with retail and professional services. The retail and professional service uses would help increase annual retail sales and reduce retail leakage.

Residents of the Specific Plan Area and the surrounding City and unincorporated areas could shop at the planned core area retail and professional service facilities located within the central core area.
1 CRW Systems. City of Salinas Permits Issued for the Period 6/1/2018 thru 6/1/2019. Provided by Kristy Parker, City of Salinas Permit Center Coordinator, on June 24, 2019. 2 City of Monterey Permits Issued for the Period 6/1/2018 thru 6/1/2019. Provided by Lisa Feliciano, City of Monterey Permit Inspection Services Division, on June 14, 2018. 53 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations The Specific Plan focuses on individual neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other civic gathering spaces; the tree-lined streets with pedestrian amenities; a Main Street and Town Square surrounded by shops and restaurants; and mixing of land uses that encourages residents to frequently walk and bicycle in their community. The Specific Plan also contains goals and policies which require and/or encourage the necessary services to enhance residents’ quality of life. The Specific Plan includes design and management strategies that aim to specifically increase the quality of life for the future residents and employees of the Specific Plan Area. For example, the Specific Plan includes sections regarding traffic calming and landscaping in order to create safe and attractive streets, parks, and landscaped areas.

Quality of life is also an important factor in the ability of the City to attract and retain businesses.

The Specific Plan addresses improving safety, improving access to open space and recreational opportunities, and the adequate provision of public services. If currently unemployed residents become employed and increase their earnings through new businesses resulting from development of the Specific Plan, it is expected that their income level and standard of living will improve.

5. The project will revitalize the local infrastructure.

The proposed Specific Plan circulation and infrastructure policies promote investment in infrastructure systems including water supply, wastewater and storm drainage conveyance and disposal facilities that are critical to support the proposed uses. Section 8.5 of the Specific Plan outlines the Public Facilities Impact Fee program. Section 8.6 of the Specific Plan includes funding policies that will govern the funding of infrastructure and public facilities for the Specific Plan Area.

6. The project will implement the Salinas General Plan.

The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Salinas General Plan and individual development applications in the Specific Plan Area, applying—and adding greater specificity to—the goals, policies and concepts of the General Plan for that area. The Specific Plan provides a complete blueprint for development of the Specific Plan Area, including:
• A description of proposed land uses,
• Policies, regulations and standards to support the Specific Plan, • Infrastructure needed to support the Specific Plan, and • Implementation and administrative processes needed for plan development.

The Specific Plan has been crafted to be consistent with overall community goals as expressed in the General Plan, as well as more specific policies and implementation measures contained in other documents.

The 2002 General Plan identifies areas for growth within the FGAs (which includes the Specific Plan Area). The Salinas General Plan Land Use Table LU-3 identifies the development capacity of the FGAs. This includes 15,873 residential units, resulting in an additional population of 58,253 within the City’s FGAs. The proposed Central Area Specific Plan development proposes 54 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations up to 3,911 units with the potential to increase the population of the city by an estimated 14,353 persons, which is within the projections identified in the Salinas General Plan.

Additionally, the General Plan identified FGAs as areas of the City where future urban development will be directed. FGAs are established as a part of the General Plan maps, and include the Specific Plan Area, as well as other nearby areas. The General Plan provides development guidance within the FGAs so that they are developed as urban neighborhoods using the principles of New Urbanism. The principles of new urbanist design are further detailed in Chapter 37 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code. The Specific Plan Area is currently designated New Urbanism Interim (NI) by the City’s zoning map. The purpose of the NI zoning district is to provide a transitional zone for the FGAs of the City located north of East Boronda Road (including the Specific Plan Area) that are within the City limits and are subject to the preparation of specific plans and subsequent subdivision maps.

The New Urbanism Districts promote the principles of New Urbanism and the creation of distinct identifiable neighborhoods that have Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) characteristics as expressed in the Salinas General Plan and that are intended to guide the development of the North of Boronda FGA. The FGA is also subject to a Specific Plan Overlay.

The Overlay requires that a Specific Plan be approved by the City prior to the development of any land located in the FGA. As such, an approved Specific Plan will ultimately regulate the development in the FGA. The New Urbanism districts identified in the City’s zoning code and the Central Area Specific Plan are as follows: Neighborhood Edge (NE) A/Residential Low Density, Neighborhood Edge (NE) B/ Residential Low Density, Neighborhood General (NG) A/Residential Medium Density, Neighborhood General (NG) B/Residential Medium Density, Neighborhood General (NG) C/Residential Medium Density and/or Residential High Density, Village Center (VC) A and B, Public/Semipublic (PS), Parks (P) and Open Space (OS).

The development allowed by the project will be consistent with the development types and intensities identified in the General Plan and its associated Final Program EIR. The project does not change limits, amount, type, or intensity of development allowed in the Plan Area beyond what was analyzed in the certified Final Program EIR for the General Plan and Supplemental EIR for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (SCH#2007031055).

C. Conclusion
As explained above, the City Council has balanced these benefits and considerations against the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the project and has concluded that the impacts are outweighed by these benefits, among others. After balancing environmental costs against project benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits the City of Salinas community and economy will derive from the project outweigh the risks. The City Council believes the project benefits outlined above override the significant and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the project.

Attachment
55 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations Impacts, Mitigation Measures and CEQA Findings Summary Table 56 Findings of Fact and
Central Area Specific Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations This page left intentionally blank.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND CEQA FINDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.1-1: The project has the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan (Less than Significant)
AMBAG, in consultation with the City of Salinas,
included the North of Boronda Future Growth
Area (inclusive of the Central Area Specific Plan
within the AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth
Forecast. The 2018 Regional Growth Forecast
provides the region’s population, housing, and
employment forecasts for inclusion for AMBAG’s
2040 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(MTP/SCS) as well as for the future version of the
AQMP. 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 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.”). The
project would not conflict with or obstruct the
latest air quality plan. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-26 through

3.1-32)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.1-2: Project operation has the potential to
cause a violation of an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Prior to approval of tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the following features into project plans and specifications, as directed by the City of Salinas:
• Provide traffic calming measures (such as speed bumps, traffic circles, and/or SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
quality violation (Potentially Significant)
Buildout of the Plan Area is expected to exceed
some of the MBARD operational criteria
pollutant emissions thresholds, as modelled.

Mitigation measures are provided below to reduce
emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Upon
full buildout, the Specific Plan would exceed the
MBARD thresholds of significance for operations
for ROG, NOx, and PM10, even after mitigation.
(DEIR, pp. 3.1-28 through 3.1-32)
other standard measures) on at least 50% of streets and intersections within the Plan Area;
• Require the parking lots or parking structures for new commercial, office, retail, and multifamily development to provide enough parking spaces for carpools and vanpools to accommodate reasonably foreseeable consumer demand at the time of the approval of such development, consistent with State of California laws and policies intended to encourage the use of carpools and vanpools;
• Require the use of low-VOC paint for all new building architectural coatings within the Plan Area, consistent with or better than, what is required by the City’s Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to approval of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate effective methods to facilitate the use of cleaner alternative fuel (e.g., electric vehicles, carpooling, etc.) within the Plan Area. Effective methods may include the installation of alternative fuel (e.g. electric) charging stations at locations spaced throughout the Plan Area including but not limited to those specified in this Draft EIR, as applicable, consistent with or better than what is required by the City’s Municipal Code and Specific Plan. Additionally, this can be achieved by providing preferential parking for alternatively-powered vehicles, including electric cars, and/or by providing carpool/vanpool parking spaces.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Prior to approval of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the use of alternative energy for the residential and mixed use/commercial developments, including by implementing alternative energy (e.g. PV solar) building requirements, consistent with or better than, what is required by the City’s Municipal Code and State requirements (e.g. the 2019 California Solar Mandate). Project applicant(s) shall also ensure that pre-installed electrical hookups and/or charging stations, as applicable, are incorporated into all project plans and specifications.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall provide plans that demonstrate that low-flow (high-efficiency) indoor water fixtures will be installed throughout the Plan Area, including for bathroom and kitchen faucets, toilet fixtures, and showers, in both residential and non-residential buildings, in compliance with or better than the standards required within the most recent version of the California Green Building Standards Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-5: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall provide plans that demonstrate that water-efficient irrigation systems will be installed throughout the Plan Area, consistent with or better than the requirements contained within the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance and the Salinas Zoning Code Landscaping and Irrigation requirements.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-6: Prior to approval of improvement plans or development review permits, as applicable, the project applicant(s) shall ensure that pedestrian/bicycle facilities (e.g. pedestrian paths, outdoor bike racks, etc.) are provided within the Specific Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through

3.1-8, the Specific Plan would exceed
the MBARD thresholds of significance
for operations for ROG, NOx, and
PM10. Therefore, the impact is
significant and unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Plan Area, in coordination with and subject to approval by the City of Salinas. The project proponent shall also provide bicycling parking near the entrance to commercial establishments within the Specific Plan Area, consistent with or better than the requirements contained within the City’s Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-7: Prior to the issuance of development review permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall incorporate the following additional Plan Area requirements, as applicable:
• Install secured bicycle storage facilities (bike lockers, cages, interior space, or similar as approved by the City Engineer) at all commercial and public facilities with 50 employees or more;
• Incorporate park-and-ride lots.
• Install 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); and
• Install publicly-available dual post Level 2 charge stations within the VC or NG zones, and/or other zones as deemed acceptable by the City of Salinas. (Note:

The 'level' of the charging station refers to the voltage that the electric vehicle charger uses. Level 1 charging is your typical traditional home outlet, while level 2 is a 240 Volt Portable Cordset or Wall-mounted Charging Station (2-10 hours charging).

Mitigation Measure 3.1-8: Prior to the approval of individual phases (i.e. tentative maps, site plan review, etc.), the project applicant(s) shall 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 the Air District and the City of Salinas on a projectby-project basis (of phase-by-phase), and is intended to be in addition to offsets that are obtained through any on-site mitigation measures. Example projects that could be included in the offsite mitigation program may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Replace existing agricultural combustion-based generators/pumps with electric agricultural water pumps (in place of generators/pumps; • Replace combustion school buses with electric school buses within the local community;
• Install adaptive traffic control systems;
• Install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems
Impact 3.1-3: Project construction has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an
Mitigation Measure 3.1-9: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review and approval by the City. In the event that ground-disturbance exceeds 2.2 acres per day for initial site preparation activities that involve extensive earth-moving activities (e.g., grubbing, excavation, rough grading), and

8.1 acres per day for activities that involve minimal earth-moving (e.g., finish grading), the LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (Potentially Significant)
The Specific Plan maximum daily unmitigated
emissions during construction of the Plan Area
buildout in a single year is not expected to exceed
the MBARD threshold of significance (82 pounds
per day) for construction-generated PM10.

Nevertheless, since it is possible that future
development proposed within the Plan Area could
involve grading that exceeds 2.2 acres per day,
MBARD recommends the implementation
Mitigation Measure 3.1-9. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-32
through 3.1-35)
required grading plans shall include the following measures to be implemented as needed to prevent visible dust emissions:
• Water all active construction sites to prevent visible dust emissions. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure; • Prohibit grading and earthmoving activities, and cover stock piles, during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);
• Limit vehicle speed on construction sites to 15 mph.
• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days); • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area;
• Maintain at least 1-foot of freeboard in each haul truck; • Provide windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects where adjacent to open land;
• Cover inactive storage piles;
• Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; and/or
• Post a publicly visible sign written in English and Spanish which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The phone number of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). The sign shall be in accordance with MBARD and/or City requirements, as applicable • Use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to EPA’s second or firstmost stringent Tier emission standards (e.g. Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards in 2019), or better; and/or
• Further, where reasonably feasible, construction equipment should include the use of alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), propane, electricity or biodiesel.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.1-9 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-9 requires
preparation of a grading plan with
measures to prevent visible dust
emissions. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.1-9 would
reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Impact 3.1-4: The project has the potential to result
in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
affecting a substantial number of people (Potentially
Significant)
The Specific Plan does not propose sensitive
receptors that could be exposed to odors in the
vicinity; nor does it propose uses that would
create odors that could expose receptors in the
area. Therefore, operation of the project would
not result in significant objectionable odors.

This project is located in an area that is designated
attainment-unclassified for carbon monoxide.

Therefore, no project-level conformity analysis is
necessary for CO. Substantial concentrations of
Mitigation Measure 3.1-10: Prior to issuance of building permits or commencing operation of any commercial building/use that would emit toxic air contaminants (such as gas stations or dry cleaning operations), the project applicant shall, at a minimum, perform prioritization screening in accordance with the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990) and the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act. The prioritization screening shall be performed in accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Program guidance. The prioritization screening shall also be conducted consistent with the guidance provided by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, which will be responsible for determining which facilities, based on their prioritization screening score, must perform a health risk assessment. In determining the need to prepare a health risk assessment, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District considers the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors specific to the facility that indicate that it may pose a significant health risk.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 requires
performance of a prioritization
screening in accordance with the Air
Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility
Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990)
and the Air Toxics "Hot Spots"
Information and Assessment Act.

Implementation of Mitigation
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any
streets or intersections affected by the
development of the Plan Area.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-10
would ensure that each future business is assessed
for TACs in accordance with the requirements of
the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility
Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990). (DEIR, pp.

3.1-35 and 3.1-40)
If a health risk assessment is warranted for a facility based on its prioritization score, the project applicant shall assess the facilities for the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the applicable thresholds (utilizing an air dispersion modelling program such as AERMOD). As of the time of this writing, the commonly accepted threshold for cancer risk is 10 in a million for carcinogens, and the reference exposure level for non-carcinogens (HI = 1). Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) have the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants levels that would be considered significant. Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) must incorporate mitigation to reduce the risks from emission of toxic air contaminants to an acceptable level (i.e., to a level that does not exceed the applicable threshold[s]). Potential mitigation includes: reducing the size of the facility area; rearranging the site to reduce the potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors; and utilizing products that reduce the level of toxic air contaminants, or removal of such products from the operational phase of the project.

Measure 3.1-10 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.1-5: The project has the potential cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly (Potentially Significant)
The increases in criteria pollutants generated by
the 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 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. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-40 and 3.1-44)
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.1-10. LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 requires
performance of a prioritization
screening in accordance with the Air
Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility
Prioritization Guidelines (July 1990)
and the Air Toxics "Hot Spots"
Information and Assessment Act.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.1-10 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.1-6: Cumulative impact on the region’s air
quality (Potentially Significant)
As discussed under Impact 3.1-2, implementation
of the Specific Plan would result in increased
emissions primarily from vehicle miles travelled
associated with project implementation and area
sources. The MBARD has established operationsrelated emissions thresholds of significance and it was determined that the Specific Plan annual
emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 at full
buildout would exceed the MBARD’s thresholds
of significance for these pollutants, even with
mitigation.

Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10. CS and SU Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

The City Council has directed that
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through

3.1-10 be adopted. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through

3.1-10, which have been required or
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
As is currently proposed, the Specific Plan is
expected to be built out under a staged approach,
and all mitigation would be applicable to each
stage. However, even with the application of
mitigation measures, operational emissions levels
would remain above the defined thresholds of
significance. Exceedance of the threshold within
an area designated as nonattainment would be a
cumulatively considerable impact. (DEIR, pp.

3.1-44 and 3.1-46)
incorporated into the Project, will
substantially lessen the severity of the
significant effect, but will not reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant
level. No mitigation is available to
render the effects less than significant.

The effects therefore remain significant
and unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) - Invertebrates (Less Than Significant)
There are numerous special-status invertebrates
that are documented within region. None are
documented within the Specific Plan Area or
vicinity. Based on field surveys, habitat
conditions, and records searches, there are no
special status invertebrate species that have the
potential to be present within the Specific Plan
Area. The project would not, directly or
indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on
invertebrate species through habitat modifications
or reductions, cause populations to drop below
self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a
community, or substantially reduce the number
of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or
threatened species, including those considered
candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-37)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.2-2: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect 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 CS and SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS - Reptile and Amphibian
(Potentially Significant)
The entire Specific Plan Area is within the 1.3
miles migration distance for California tiger
salamander (CTS). There are also small
microhabitats within the Specific Plan Area, some
of which can provide habitat for CTS. The
microhabitats include: farmland fringe (or edge),
irrigation ditches, creek corridors, and areas
farmland residence/structures. Higher quality
upland habitat is found to the northeast and east
in the foothill areas; however, the Specific Plan
Area cannot be completely discounted as having
potential refuge sites especially considering that
there is a breeding site present. The paved roads,
dirt roads, and tilled farmland provide limited
habitat because of the frequency of disturbance in
these areas.

The paved roads, dirt roads, tilled farmland,
farmland fringe, and farmland residences provide
very limited to no habitat. As previously noted,
there are numerous documented occurrences of
California red-legged frog (CRLF) within the
Natividad Creek corridor, which is within the
Specific Plan Area. Gabilan Creek corridor
provides habitat for CRLF, although none have
been observed in this area. The project includes a
restoration and habitat creation effort that would
result in a riparian corridor along both Natividad
and Gabilan Creeks. 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 the creeks during the restoration and
habitat creation process. The temporary impact to
the creek corridors would have the potential to
impact CRLF if present during the construction
period. Additionally, CRLF could be impacted
during the construction of the crossings/bridges
over the creek corridor. Restoration and alteration
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 vegetationor ground-disturbing activities.

The regulatory approvals are 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).

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 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) for CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting project, which will substantially lessen
the severity of the significant effects
on the environment, but will not
reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. No additional feasible mitigation is available to render the
effects less than significant. The
effects therefore remain significant and
unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 through

3.2-5 be adopted. Mitigation Measure

3.2-1 would ensure a final concurrence
is obtained from the regulatory
agencies to ensure that there is no
illegal take for CTS even though they
are well documented as a hybrid
population. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2
would require activities to avoid and
minimize impacts to CTS to the extent
feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 would
ensure a final concurrence is obtained
from the regulatory agencies to ensure
that there is no illegal take for CRLF.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 would
require activities to avoid and
minimize impacts to CRLF to the
extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-5 would
require minimization and avoidance
measures for the WPT, as applicable.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
of these creek corridors will ultimately result in
improved habitat quality of these creek corridors,
which would be a benefit to the CRLF population
in the region.

The foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) is known
to occur in aquatic habitats, such as creeks or
rivers in woodland, forest, mixed chaparral, and
wet meadow habitats with rock and gravel
substrate and low overhanging vegetation along
the edge. They are usually found near riffles with
rocks and sunny banks nearby. The FYLF is not
documented in the immediate vicinity of the
Specific Plan Area. The creek corridors within the
Specific Plan Area provide some limited habitat
for FYLF; however, there are no documented
occurrences and the existing conditions of the
creek corridors is not ideal for this species.

The balance of the Specific Plan Area has limited
habitat qualities for western pond turtle (WPT)
given that there is regular disturbance from
agricultural activities. The irrigation ditches along
the margins of fields provide some limited habitat
value; however, vegetation removal activities,
such as burning, mowing, and herbicide spraying,
makes it very unlikely that pond turtles would
occupy these areas. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-37 through

3.2-46; Final EIR [FEIR], pp. 2.0-73 – 2.0-74; 3.0-
6 – 3.0-7)
drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with an ITP 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: 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 CRLF. 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 CRLF habitat.

The Gabilan and Natividad Creek are CRLF habitat and both are anticipated to be expanded through habitat creation/restoration. The restoration and habitat creation include up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project) along Natividad Creek. Given that the creation/restoration is an expansion of habitat beyond what exists presently, it is anticipated that there would be a net increase in CRLF habitat. There is, however, the potential for temporary impacts to CRLF during the creation/restoration effort. The final restoration and habitat creation design shall be subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF to the extent feasible, the 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 a scientific collecting permit for CRLF 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 a scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CRLF migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CRLF found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-5: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to WPT to the extent feasible, the project activities shall be compliant with the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures: 1) conduct environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) conduct western pond turtle surveys within creek corridors, ponded/basin areas, and irrigation ditches by a qualified biologist, 3) survey upland areas within 0.5 miles of the aquatic features for evidence of nests as well as individual turtles, 4) make a reasonable effort to capture and relocate as many western pond turtles as possible to minimize take, 5) if a nest is observed, move eggs to a suitable location or facility for incubation, and release hatchlings into the creek corridor the following autumn, 6) design habitat elements within the creek corridor to benefit western pond turtle (i.e. include logs or rafts for emergent basking sites, and upland areas adjacent to ponds in a relatively open condition), and 7) post construction report. All survey and/or handling of WPT shall be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW.

Impact 3.2-3: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS - Birds (Potentially
Significant)
There are numerous special-status birds that are
documented within the region. The Specific Plan
Area was assessed for habitat to support specialstatus birds. Field surveys revealed the presence of two special-status birds: yellow warbler (Setophaga
petechial), and California horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris actia). While other special-status birds
were not observed on-site during field surveys, it
is highly likely that they could regularly use or
pass through the Specific Plan Area given their
high mobility. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-46 through 3.2-48)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Building and grading permits and plans issued for development in the project area shall note the following: If construction activities occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 – September 15) then the project proponent shall conduct pre-construction surveys to prevent impacts to nesting birds. No more than 15 days prior to the start of construction a bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify any active nests within the Specific Plan Area, and shall be submitted to the City. If construction stops for a period of 15 days or more during the avian breeding season than an additional bird survey shall be conducted. The biologist will conduct a survey in the Specific Plan Area for all special-status birds protected by the federal and state ESA, MBTA and CFGC. The biologist shall map all nests that are within, and visible from, the Specific Plan Area. If nests are identified, the biologist shall map the location and establish a minimum 300-foot buffer zone around active nests. Construction activity shall be prohibited within the buffer zones until the young have fledged. Nests shall be monitored at least twice per week during the nesting season and a report submitted to the City and CDFW monthly.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.2-6. Mitigation
Measure 3.2-6 requires a survey in the
Specific Plan Area, as applicable, for
all special-status birds protected by the
federal and state Endangered Species
Acts, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
and the California Fish and Game
Code. If nests are identified, the
biologist shall map the location and
establish a minimum 300-foot buffer
zone around active nests. Construction
activity shall be prohibited within the
buffer zones until the young have
fledged. Nests shall be monitored at
least twice per week during the nesting
season and a report submitted to the
City and CDFW monthly.

Impact 3.2-4: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS - Fish (Less Than Significant)
Based on field surveys, habitat conditions, and
records searches, there are no special status fish
species that have the potential to be present within
the Specific Plan Area. The project would not,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse
effect on fish species through habitat
modifications or reductions, cause populations to
drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially
eliminate a community, or substantially reduce
the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special
status in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (DEIR,
pp. 3.2-40 and 3.2-50)
Impact 3.2-5: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS - Mammals (Potentially
Significant)
The Specific Plan Area provides potential habitat
for several special-status bats, including: Mexican
free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), California
mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), big brown
bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus),
spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Townsend's bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Hesperus), small-footed myotis/bat (Myotis
ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis/bat (Myotis evotis),
California myotis (Myotis californicus), long-legged
myotis/bat (Myotis volans), Yuma myotis/bat
(Myotis yumanensis), and little brown bat (Myotis
lucifugus). These species are not federal or State
listed; however, most of them are considered
California Species of Special Concern and/or are
tracked by the CNDDB. Bats are found in a
variety of habitats in the region, including
Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Grading and/or building permits and plans issued for development in the project area shall note the following:
• Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat: Any vegetation/ground disturbance to the Gabilan Creek associated with the crossings or restoration should be conducted when woodrats are least likely to breed in October through November. No more than 30 days prior to construction located within 50-feet of Gabilan Creek, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat middens. At the discretion of a qualified biologist, an exclusion buffer shall be established around any woodrat middens that can be avoided, and these exclusion zones shall be fenced as Environmentally Sensitive Areas to protect the nest. If a woodrat midden cannot be avoided, potential dismantling and relocation strategies shall be developed and presented to the City of Salinas Community Development Department by a qualified biologist for review and/or approval. Potential dismantling and relocation strategies may include hiring a qualified biologist to dismantle the middens by hand for relocation within the restored/created habitat along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, or outside of the project site as appropriate. If approved by the City, a qualified wildlife biologist may dismantle only middens within the project site that would be disturbed by construction activities. If young are encountered during dismantling of the midden, any removed material may be replaced and a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer would be established around the active midden. The buffer would remain until young are weaned and are able to disperse on their own accord (typically for a period of 14 days). All removed midden substrate would be collected and relocated to suitable woodland habitat outside of the project footprint. Appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., respirator, gloves, LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.2-7 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-7 requires
avoidance and minimization measures
to avoid impacts to bat species.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
buildings, bridges, mines, caves, tree cavities,
under bark or rocks, etc. There is the potential for
bats to roost in the three farm residences
complexes located between Natividad Road and
Gabilan Creek, as well as among the numerous
outbuildings scattered throughout the Specific
Plan Area. In addition, the Gabilan Creek
provides habitat for a variety of bat species for
both roosting and foraging. There is no evidence
that there are bat roosts present in these locations
at this time; however, they can become occupied
at some future date. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-50 through

3.2-53)
and Tyvek suit) shall be used while dismantling and relocating woodrat nest material to protect against disease carried by rodents (e.g. hantavirus). • Bats: Fifteen days prior to construction activities within 200 feet of potential bat roosting habitat, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist familiar with bat biology to perform a preconstruction survey for roosting special-status bats, which shall be submitted to the City. The areas with potential bat roosting habitat include: 1) the three residential complexes located between Natividad Road and Gabilan Creek, 2) the outbuildings/structures located throughout the Specific Plan Area, and 3) Gabilan Creek. The survey shall include a minimum of one daytime and one evening survey. The survey shall cover the trees, structures, and debris located within these complexes. If active roosting is observed, removal of the tree or building shall be avoided until the bats can be excluded. All active non-maternity roosting sites shall be fitted with passive exclusion devices, such as one-way flaps or doors, and all bats shall be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is confirmed that all bats have left the roost (minimum of five days), crews shall be allowed to continue work in the area. If a maternity roosting site is discovered, a minimum 50-foot buffer shall be established around the roost. The project applicant shall consult with the qualified biologist in order to determine if a greater buffer is warranted based on the bat species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. The buffer shall stay in effect until all young are determined to be volant (i.e., able to fly and feed independently) by a qualified biologist. Once it is determined that all young are volant (generally by August 1 st), passive exclusion devices shall be installed and all bats shall be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is determined by the qualified biologist that all bats have left the roost (minimum of five days), crews shall be allowed to work within the buffer zone. Project Improvement Plans will include this measure as a note in the plans.

Impact 3.2-6: The project has the potential to,
directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an
endangered, rare or threatened species, including
those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS – Plants (Less Than
Significant)
The records search identified numerous specialstatus plants located within the region. 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
collection of field surveys included surveys that
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
coincided with the blooming period for special
many status plants known to occur within the
region. The conditions of the Specific Plan Area
are highly disturbed due to the active agricultural
operations. No special-status plants were observed
within the Specific Plan Area during field surveys.

The project would not, directly or indirectly, have
a substantial adverse effect on plant species
through habitat modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a community, or
substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the
range of, an endangered, rare or threatened
species, including those considered candidate,
sensitive, or special status in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS.. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-53)
Impact 3.2-7: The project has the potential to have
substantial adverse effect on federally - or stateprotected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means (Potentially Significant)
The Specific Plan Area contains an internal
network of agricultural ditches along the margins
of the farm fields. These areas were mostly void of
vegetation during the field surveys of September
2015 and April 2016. Farmworkers indicated that
the ditches are regularly maintained to
control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields.

These features are manmade and are fed only by
local irrigation water during the irrigation season
or rainfall during the winter/spring season.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has regulatory responsibility for
navigable waters as well as "all other waters such
as...streams ...wetlands...and natural ponds, the
use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate or foreign commerce" (33 CFR
323.2) under Section 404 of the CWA. A formal
jurisdictional determination must be made by the
USACE relative to the protected wetlands and
jurisdictional waters within the Specific Plan
Area. The agricultural irrigation ditches are
manmade and believed to solely function to drain
upland agricultural runoff. As such, they are
expected to be exempted from the USACE
jurisdiction under the Irrigation Ditch Exemption
Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: Prior to grading/building permit issuance in an area that would disturb the Gabilan Creek, Natividad Creek (and its tributaries), the project applicant shall obtain jurisdictional determinations from the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW for the creeks and ditches that are proposed to be disturbed. The creeks are confirmed jurisdictional and authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB-Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State and 401 certification, CDFW-1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) will be necessary. The irrigation ditches are anticipated to be exempt. If these regulatory agencies concur that these irrigation ditches are exempt, then no further mitigation is necessary for the irrigation ditches. If it is determined that these ditches are not exempt, authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE404 permit, RWQCB-Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State and 401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) will be necessary. At a minimum, the project applicant shall replace on a “no net loss” basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation or operations, although a higher mitigation measure may be required by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through their permitting processes. It is anticipated that the restoration of Gabilan and Natividad Creeks will result in up to 104 acres of wetland and riparian habitat creation (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project), which will serve as onsite mitigation; however, a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through the permitting processes conducted pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404, Fish and Game Code Section 1600, and State Water Board Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.2-78 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-7 requires a
1:1 replacement of acreage and
function of all wetlands and other
waters that would be removed, lost, or
degraded as a result of project
implementation or operations.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
pursuant to Federal Regulations (33 CFR
323.4(a)(3)). However, a final determination must
be made by the USACE prior to any filling of
these ditches for urban use. The agricultural
irrigation ditches would not be subject to state
jurisdiction either under the Procedures for the
Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters
of the State. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-54 through 3.2-56)
Impact 3.2-8: The project has the potential to have
substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Less Than Significant)
The records search and field surveys did not
reveal the presence of any riparian habitat or
sensitive natural communities within the Specific
Plan Area. The conditions of the Specific Plan
Area are highly disturbed due to the active
agricultural operations. The project would not
result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the CDFW or UFWSF. (DEIR,
pp. 3.2-45 and 3.2-46)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.2-9: The project has the potential to
interfere substantially with the movement of native
fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Potentially Significant)
The project has the potential to interfere
substantially with the movement of native fish or
wildlife species or with established wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. Development of the project would
eliminate any movement habitat through the
Specific Plan Area that is currently used for
farmland, along with any upland habitat adjacent
to the movement corridors. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-58
through 3.2-59)
No mitigation measures are feasible. CS and SU The EIR identified no mitigation measures to address this particular
significant effect on the environment.

Thus, the effect remains significant
and unavoidable, and no mitigation is
available to substantially lessen or
avoid the effect.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

Impact 3.2-10: The project has the potential to
conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
or Natural Community Conservation Plan (Less
Than Significant)
The project is not subject to a Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Conservation Plan. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-59)
Impact 3.2-11: The project has the potential to
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources (Less Than Significant)
The project would not conflict with local policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources. The
project proponent is required to comply with the
provisions of the City’s General Plan and
Municipal Code. As demonstrated above, the
project is generally consistent with the above
relevant open space and conservation policies of
the General Plan, as well as the City’s Municipal
Code. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-59 through 3.2-65)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.2-12: Cumulative loss of biological resources
including habitats and special status species
(Potentially Significant)
The project would result in impacts to biological
resources including habitats and special status
species. Development of the project would
eliminate any movement habitat through the
Specific Plan Area, along with any upland habitat
adjacent to the movement corridors. This
permanent loss of movement habitat was
determined to be a significant and unavoidable
impact. While the City has evaluated urban
development in the Specific Plan Area extensively
through the General Plan and North of Boronda
FGA process, and subsequently determined that
urban development in this location is appropriate,
the physical change is not reversible and there are
no mitigation measures that can fully mitigate this
loss of movement/migration habitat. Given the
presence of CTS and CRLF in the Specific Plan
Area, the cumulative loss of movement habitat
from the project, when considered alongside all
past, present, and probable future projects
(inclusive of all communities within the
Bioregion), is a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact, and the Specific Plan’s
incremental contribution to this cumulative
impact is itself cumulatively considerable. (DEIR,
pp. 3.2-65 and 3.2-68)
No additional mitigation measures beyond those identified above are feasible. CS and SU The EIR identified no mitigation measures other than those required by
the above-referenced project-specific
biological resource impacts (i.e.,
Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 through

3.2-8) to address the project’s
cumulatively considerable effects on
biological resources. Thus, the effect
remains significant and unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.3-1: Project implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: In the event that evidence of archaeological or historical features or deposits (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters) are LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
§15064.5 (Potentially Significant)
No historical resources were found during field
surveys for the project. Additionally, there are no
historical resources that have been identified in
the Specific Plan Area on maps and files
maintained by the Northwest Information Center
(NWIC). There have been three previous cultural
resource studies that examined approximately
three-quarters of the Specific Plan Area and no
historical resources were documented. The
Monterey County Historic Property Data File
Directory and National Register of Historic
Resources do not list any historical resources in
the Specific Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that ground disturbing
activities would result in impacts to historical
resources given that none are believed to be
present. However, as with most projects in
California that involve ground disturbing
activities, there is the potential for discovery of a
previously unknown historical resource. Project
implementation may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
(DEIR, pp. 3.3-12 and 3.3-13)
uncovered (discovered) during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in the area of the find until an appropriate avoidance or data recovery program can be developed and implemented by a qualified archaeologist. This archaeologist shall determine whether the uncovered deposits or features qualify as either “historical resources” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a), “unique archaeological resources” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, subdivision (g), or “tribal cultural resources,” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074. If historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or tribal cultural resources are present, the project proponent shall preserve any such resources in place if feasible as determined by the City Planner and/or implement any other feasible mitigation measures identified by the archaeologist and approved and imposed by the City. In assessing whether avoidance is feasible, the City Planner shall consider project design, logistics, and cost considerations.

All costs associated with the City’s Planner’s determination of project design, logistics and cost considerations shall be borne by the developer/applicant. Avoidance is infeasible where it would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures. Recommended mitigation measures shall be reviewed by the City Planner and shall be approved if feasible in light of project design, logistics, and cost considerations and, if approved, shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City Planner. Data recovery, including photo documentation, excavation and recovery, laboratory analysis, etc., shall be an option if preservation in place is infeasible. Where resources have been determined to be “unique archaeological resources” but not “historical resources” or “tribal cultural resources,” the project proponent’s obligations shall be limited as set forth in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, subdivisions (d), (e), and (f). Grading/building permits and plans shall note this measure.
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1 requires work to stop if
an archaeological or historical feature
or deposit is found during
construction, as well as steps to follow
once construction has stopped. If
historical resources, unique
archaeological resources, or tribal
cultural resources are present, the
project proponent shall preserve any
such resources in place if feasible as
determined by the City Planner
and/or implement any other feasible
mitigation measures identified by the
archaeologist and approved and
imposed by the City. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.3-2: Project implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5 (Potentially Significant)
No archaeological resources were found during
field surveys for the project. Additionally, no
archaeological resources have been identified in
the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by
the Northwest Information Center (NWIC).

There have been four previous cultural resource
studies that examined approximately threequarters of the Specific Plan Area and no archaeological resources were documented. The
Monterey County Historic Property Data File
Directory and National Register of Historic
Resources do not list any archaeological resources
in the Specific Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that ground disturbing
activities would result in impacts to
archaeological resources given that none are
believed to be present. However, as with most
projects in California that involve ground
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1 requires work to stop if
an archaeological or historical feature
or deposit is found during
construction, as well as steps to follow
once construction has stopped. If
historical resources, unique
archaeological resources, or tribal
cultural resources are present, the
project proponent shall preserve any
such resources in place if feasible as
determined by the City Planner
and/or implement any other feasible
mitigation measures identified by the
archaeologist and approved and
imposed by the City. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant with
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
disturbing activities, there is the potential for
discovery of a previously unknown archaeological
resource. Project implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-13 and 3.3-
14)
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.3-3: Project implementation may directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
(Potentially Significant)
A search of the University of California Museum
of Paleontology (UCMP) collections database
identified many previously recorded
paleontological resources in Monterey County.

These resources primarily consist of microfossils
and invertebrates, but also include a small number
of vertebrates and plants.

The Monterey County General Plan Draft EIR
(2007) included a review of known fossil localities
conducted by paleontologists in 2001. Twelve
fossil sites were identified as having outstanding
scientific value. For the most part, the fossils at
these 12 sites reflect the type of assemblages found
throughout the county (microorganisms or
invertebrates); however, each has special
characteristics that make it unique or rare, or in
some way provide important stratigraphic or
historic information. None of the 12 identified
high value sites are located on or near the Specific
Plan Area. Additionally, the Salinas General Plan
Final EIR (2002) does not identify any high value
sites in the Specific Plan Area or in the City as a
whole.

However, unknown important paleontological
resources have the potential to occur within the
planning area including the undeveloped future
growth areas, which include the Specific Plan
Area. The construction of new development
would involve grading and other earthwork that
can disturb important fossils. Therefore, project
implementation may directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological resource. (DEIR, pp.

3.3-14)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: If paleontological resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Salinas shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where the resource could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-2 requires work to stop if
a paleontological resource is found
during construction, as well as steps to
follow once construction has stopped.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.3-4: Project implementation may disturb
human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries (Potentially Significant)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Grading and/or building permits and plans for development in the project area shall note the following: If human remains are found during construction within the Specific Plan Area, or at off-site infrastructure improvement locations, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the area of the find or any LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
No human remains or known burial sites were
found during field surveys for the project.

Additionally, there are no human remains or
known burial sites that have been identified in the
Specific Plan Area on maps and files maintained
by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC).

There have been four previous cultural resource
studies that examined approximately threequarters of the Specific Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented.

The Monterey County Historic Property Data File
Directory and National Register of Historic
Resources do not list any human remains or
known burial sites in the Specific Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that ground disturbing
activities would result in impacts to human
remains or known burial sites given that none are
believed to be present. However, as with most
projects in California that involve ground
disturbing activities, there is the potential for
discovery of previously unknown human remains
or known burial sites. Project implementation
may disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries (DEIR, pp.

3.3-15)
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Monterey County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-3 requires work to stop if
human remains are found during
construction, as well as steps to follow
once construction has stopped.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.3-5: The project may contribute to
cumulative impacts on known and undiscovered
cultural resources (Potentially Significant)
Early consultation with the culturally and
traditionally affiliated Native American Tribes
was initiated in early 2017. The
Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation (a
historically documented previously recognized
tribe in the Plan Area) provided a comment letter
on April 22, 2017, objecting to any disturbance of
human remains and/or cultural items that may be
discovered during the development of the Plan
Area. No tribal cultural resources have been
identified within or adjacent to the Specific Plan
Area. Additionally, as described under Impacts

3.3-1 through 3.3-3 (above), with incorporation of
Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3, the
project would not generate a significant adverse
impact to historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources, or cause a significant
disturbance to any human remains. (DEIR, pp.

3.3-16)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through 3.3-
3 to be adopted (see above for further
detail).

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
Impact 3.4-1: Potential to generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Potentially
Significant)
Short-term construction GHG emissions are a
one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to
significantly contribute to global climate change
over the lifetime of the Specific Plan. Even after
incorporation of the mitigation measures provided
in Section 3.1: Air Quality, overall GHGs
generated by the project are expected to be greater
than the applicable thresholds of 1,150 MT of
CO2e per year for construction emissions, 1.94
MT CO2e/service population/year for operational
emissions during Year 2035, and 0.80 MT
CO2e/service population/year for operational
emissions during Year 2050. The project would
generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-34 through 3.4-41;
FEIR, pp. 2.0-34 – 2.0-40; 3.0-7 – 3.0-9)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the approval of the tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, as applicable, 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, 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.

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 CARBapproved 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 SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
mitigation is available to fully avoid
the effects.

Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, it is possible
that individual projects within the Plan
Area may not achieve GHG
reductions needed for their individual
impacts to be less than significant.

Therefore, the impact is significant
and unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
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 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.

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
(Potentially Significant)
The Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions
that could conflict with the State’s long-term
GHG Reduction targets, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1
through 3.1-9 contained within Section 3.1: Air
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.4-1 would ensure that
GHG reduction measures required
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Quality. The Specific Plan would not interfere
with the 2008 Monterey Bay Regional Energy Plan
objectives. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-41 through 3.4-46)
pursuant to it are consistent with the
intent of current and future statewide
GHG reduction legislation and
regulations, and with current and
future expectations of local, regional,
and State stakeholders regarding the
City’s effort to reduce GHG emissions
from new development, including
Executive Order B-30-15 and S-03-05.

Therefore, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, new
development of the Plan Area would
consistent with Executive Orders B-30-
15 (and SB 32) and S-03-05.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.4-3: Project implementation may result in
the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources (Less Than Significant)
The project would use energy resources for the
operation of project buildings (electricity and
natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g.
gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the project,
and from off-road construction activities
associated with the project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each
of these activities would require the use of energy
resources. The project would be in compliance
with all applicable federal, State, and local
regulations regulating energy usage. Overall, the
incorporation of mitigation measures would
ensure that the project would avoid and reduce
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary
consumption of energy. The project would
comply with all existing energy standards,
including those established by the City of Salinas,
the local air district (MBARD), and the State of
California, and would not be expected to result in
significant adverse impacts on energy resources.
(DEIR, pp. 3.4-46 through 3.4-51)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.4-4: Cumulative impact on climate change
from increased project-related greenhouse gas
emission (Potentially Significant)
Implementation of the project will generate GHG
emissions that would not otherwise exist without
the project. Given the length of construction
activities for a project of this size, the construction emissions would be a maximum annual release of
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. CS and SU Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
approximately 12,148.7 MT CO2e. The
operational emissions would be a long-term
release totaling approximately 45,347.1 MT CO2e
per year without mitigation, and 40,134.3 MT
CO2e per year with mitigation. The City of
Salinas’s planning efforts included targeted
growth that accommodates the economic and
social needs of the community, while recognizing
and seeking to mitigate environmental impacts
when growth occurs. The State of California
continues to implement measures that are
intended to reduce emissions on a State-wide
scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in
fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent
with AB 32 and SB 32. These types of statewide
measures will benefit the project (and city as a
whole) in the long-term as they come into effect;
however, the City does not have the jurisdiction
to create far-reaching (i.e. statewide) measures to
reduce GHG emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-51
through 3.4-52)
The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.4-1 would ensure that
GHG reduction measures required
pursuant to it are consistent with the
intent of current and future statewide
GHG reduction legislation and
regulations, and with current and
future expectations of local, regional,
and State stakeholders regarding the
City’s effort to reduce GHG emissions
from new development, including
Executive Order B-30-15 and S-03-05.

Therefore, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, new
development of the Plan Area would
consistent with Executive Orders B-30-
15 (and SB 32) and S-03-05.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.5-1: Potential to be located on a site which
is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Potentially
Significant)
The hazards assessments included site
reconnaissance, interviews, historical land use
research, database research, and soils testing. The
project has the potential to be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment. The following mitigation measures
will reduce the potential risk of hazards as
identified in the hazard’s assessment. (DEIR, pp.

3.5-18 through 3.5-21; FEIR, pp. 2.0-185 – 2.0-
187; 3.0-9 – 3.0-10)
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 asbestoscontaining materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a CalOSHA 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 LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 through

3.5-3 be adopted. Implementation of
the Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 requires
a final evaluation of the soils around
the agricultural operations support
buildings and investigation of
structures for asbestos-containing
materials and lead. Implementation of
the Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requires
destruction of existing water wells.

Implementation of the Mitigation
Measures 3.5-2 requires that water
wells serving the proposed building be
constructed and tested for water
quality under permit from the
Monterey County Health Department
Therefore, this impact is less than
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
(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.

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. 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 significant with mitigation
incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
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.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, existing water wells within the grading area shall be destroyed under permit from the City of Salinas and/or the Monterey County Health Department, as applicable. Any destruction of these facilities shall be in accordance with the Monterey County Well Standards for Abandonment/Destruction. The project applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate destruction of these facilities.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the water well or wells that will be providing water for the applicable portion of the Specific Plan Area, shall be constructed and tested for water quality under permit from the Monterey County Health Department. The project applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate construction and operation of these facilities.

Impact 3.5-2: Create a significant hazard to school
sites due to siting or the placement of infrastructure
(Potentially Significant)
The project does not pose significant hazards from
existing natural gas transmission piping, and
mitigation measures identified under Impact 3.5-1
would ensure water well construction and
abandonment impacts would be less than
significant. However, implementation of the
project may create a significant hazard to school
sites due to siting or the placement of
infrastructure (i.e., the due to the citing of school
sites near power lines). (DEIR, pp. 3.5-21 through

3.5-24)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: The property line of all school sites (even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (o) of § 14010) shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements as identified in the California Code of Regulations Title 5, Article 2. School Sites § 14010, Standards for School Site Selection (c):
• 100 feet for power lines that are between 50 and 133 kV.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 be adopted.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.5-4 ensures all future
electrical transmission alignments are
required to comply with California
Code of Regulations Title 5, Article 2
(School Sites) § 14010 (Standards for
School Site Selection) setback
requirements. Therefore, this impact is
less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.5-3: Cumulative impact related to hazards
and hazardous materials (Less Than Significant)
The project includes the approval and subsequent
implementation of an approximately 760‐acre
Specific Plan area that includes residential, mixed
use commercial, neighborhood parks, small parks,
schools, public/semipublic uses such as religious
assembly and open space (with supplemental
storm water detention/retention basins). These
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
uses are not expected to create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. Additionally, these uses are
not expected to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment. The proposed Specific Plan land
uses are not expected to emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste. Mitigation
measures have been included to minimize the risk
of on-site hazards. (DEIR, pp. 3.5-24 through 3.5-
25)

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.6-1: The project has the potential to violate
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during construction (Potentially
Significant)
Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover,
and loading activities associated with construction
activities could temporarily increase runoff,
erosion, and sedimentation. Construction
activities also could result in soil compaction and
wind erosion effects that could adversely affect
soils and reduce the revegetation potential at
construction sites and staging areas. (DEIR, pp.

3.6-27 through 3.5-30)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Salinas prior to submitting to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014- DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed to be effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and shall not preclude the use of equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Salinas. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB or the City of Salinas.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department the project Improvement Plans. The Improvement Plans shall be consistent with the City’s Development Standards, Standard Plans, and current NPDES permit requirements at the time of permitting. The NPDES permit granted to the City of Salinas by the Central Coast RWQCB (RWQCB – Central Coast Region, 2019) requires the following:

I. Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs – Erosion control and sediment control BMPs shall be designed, installed, and maintained to reduce the discharge of pollutants from construction sites to the maximum extent practical (MEP) and protect water quality;
II. Erosion and sediment from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of erosion control (source control) and other sediment control BMPs; and
III. Soil Stabilization – Stabilization of disturbed areas shall, at a minimum, be LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 and
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires the
use of BMPs during construction
activities in order to reduce erosion,
control sediment, and manage runoff
from the Plan Area. Mitigation 3.6-2
requires the project proponent to
ensure project Improvement Plans are
consistent with the applicable City’s
Development Standards, Standard
Plans, and current NPDES permit
requirements at the time of permitting,
as well as the City’s Stormwater
Development Standards for New and
Redevelopment Projects. Therefore,
this impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating, or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased.

Additionally, the Improvement Plans shall be consistent with the requirements of the City’s most current Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The City of Salinas Stormwater Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects (City of Salinas, 2013) require the following practices:

I. Limit disturbance of creeks and natural drainage features and provide setbacks according to the City’s latest NPDES permit;
II. Minimize compaction of highly permeable soils; and
III. Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation to the minimum needed to build the project and provide fire protection.

Impact 3.6-2: The project has the potential to violate
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during operation (Potentially
Significant)
The long-term operations of the project (all
phases) could result in long-term impacts to
surface water quality from urban stormwater
runoff. The project would result in new
impervious areas associated with roadways,
driveways, parking lots, buildings, and landscape
areas. The project has the potential to violate
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements during operation. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-30
through 3.6-33)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for water quality best management practices (BMPs) and water quality detention/retention basins designed to meet the applicable regulatory requirements and to reduce contaminant loadings to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.

The approved Stormwater Control Plans shall be submitted to Central Coast RWQCB through SMARTS as part of the project’s SWPPP permit documents.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for operational water quality best management practices (BMPs) and water quality detention basins designed to prevent to the maximum extent practicable the creation of new sources of polluted runoff. Operational water quality BMPs may include extended detention basins, wet ponds/detention basins, porous pavement, inlet filters, vegetative BMPs, underground infiltration systems, vegetative swales, or storm drain stenciling and posting of signage. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a Hydrologic study as part of the Stormwater Control Plan to the Salinas Public Works Department with detailed plans and calculations for supplemental retention and peak flow control. BMPs will be designed to meet regulatory requirements and to reduce peak flows during storm events below peak flows under pre-project conditions. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.6-3 through

3.6-5 be adopted. Mitigation Measure

3.6-3 requires submittal of a
Stormwater Control Plan that includes
calculations, BMPs and plan of
sufficient detail to confirm that
contaminant loadings to receiving
waters will be reduced to the
maximum extent practicable.

Mitigation Measures 3.6-4 and 3.6-5
require submittal of detailed plans and
calculations for the water quality
BMPs, water quality detention basins,
and supplemental retention and peak
flow control. The BMPs will be
designed to meet regulatory
requirements and to reduce peak flows
during storm events below peak flows
under pre-project conditions. The
various RWQCBs have evaluated the
effectiveness of the types of BMPs
required by Mitigation Measures 3.6-3
through 3.6-5 and have determined
that BMPs are known to be effective in
protecting receiving waters. Therefore,
this impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.6-3: The project has the potential to
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall site, and design and include an Operation and Maintenance Plan for, stormwater retention/infiltration basins and infiltration promoting BMPs sufficient to LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin (Potentially
Significant)
The project, without mitigating features, would
reduce infiltration of rainwater and runoff into the
local groundwater system due to the increase in
impermeable area. This may deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge. The total annual rainfall
depth in an average year is approximately 16
inches and the project surface area is
approximately 760 acres, producing an annual
rainfall volume of approximately 1,013 AF.

Nearly all of this area is currently in agriculture,
while the project could convert as much as 60
percent of the area to impervious surfaces,
resulting in a reduction in groundwater recharge
in the range of 400 to 600 AF. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-33
through 3.6-38)
assure that there is no reduction in groundwater recharge. In order to assure there is no reduction in recharge, the plan shall result in circumstances which maintain infiltration to support baseflow and interflow to wetlands and surface waters, and deep vertical infiltration to groundwater. The site, design, and installation shall be consistent with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The contents of the site, landscaping (ground cover, bushes and trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable), design, and installation shall be included in a Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan shall be reflected on the Improvement Plans and subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-7: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall site, design, and include an Operation and Maintenance Plan for, postconstruction BMPs and supplemental stormwater detention basins in accordance with City of Salinas stormwater development standards. Maintenance procedures (including frequency of procedure, cleaning schedules, applicant responsibility for each procedure, performance standards, or other means) and funding mechanisms shall be established for those facilities to assure adequate long-term performance and success in treating the water and controlling infiltration into the groundwater. The Improvement Plans and Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.6-6 and 3.6-7
be adopted. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6 requires an
Operation and Maintenance Plan for
stormwater retention/infiltration
basins and infiltration promoting
BMPs sufficient to assure that there is
no reduction in groundwater recharge.

Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.6-7 requires an Operation
and Maintenance Plan for postconstruction BMPs and supplemental stormwater detention basins in
accordance with City of Salinas
stormwater development standards.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.6-4: The project has the potential to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (Less than Significant)
The proposed development, including water
quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention
basins, is designed to minimize or eliminate
increases in runoff entering existing surface water
courses and storm drains. The calculations
completed as part of the Hydrology and Water
Quality Technical Study indicate that peak runoff
and total volume of runoff will be minimized by
the proposed development storm drainage design
which retains water to the maximum extent
possible.
(DEIR, pp. 3.6-38 through 3.6-39)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.6-5: The project has the potential to
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-1. LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
water quality (Potentially Significant)
The project would not otherwise substantially
degrade water quality. The use of BMPs are
intended to treat runoff close to the source during
the construction and long term operational phase
of the project to reduce stormwater quality
impacts. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-39 through 3.6-40)
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires the
use of BMPs during construction
activities in order to reduce erosion,
control sediment, and manage runoff
from the Plan Area. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.6-6: The project has the potential to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite, or impede or redirect flood flows
(Potentially Significant)
The proposed development, including water
quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention
basins, is designed to minimize or eliminate
increases in runoff entering existing surface water
courses and storm drains. The calculations
completed as part of the Hydrology and Water
Quality Technical Study indicate that peak runoff
and total volume of runoff will be minimized by
the proposed development storm drainage design,
which retains water to the maximum extent
possible. The project will not alter drainage
patterns in a manner which would substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
offsite, or impede or redirect flood flows. (DEIR,
pp. 3.6-40 and 3.6-44)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-8: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit an application for a letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F) to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with pertinent information and studies for approval that indicates no building construction would take place within remapped FEMA flood zones AE and A and that no changes to the regulated floodway will result in an increase in the base flood elevation or impact to the downstream waterways.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-9: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department detailed grading plans and calculations designed to place enough fill onto the shaded Zone X area as to raise the land surface elevation above the base flood elevation so that flooding hazards are minimized to a FEMA flood standard. The project applicant shall submit an application for a LOMR-F to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and FEMA with pertinent information for approval.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-10: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner, detailed plans, calculations, landscaping (and irrigation as applicable) plans, and design basis reports for creek corridor restoration, including detention/retention/water quality basins, within the flood hazard extents identified as Zones A and AE that provide assurances that during large storm events, creek flows and sediment transport from upstream sources are not impeded at the same time as when the adjacent basins are at or near capacity. The design basis reports for creek corridor restoration shall also be submitted to the USACE, USFWS, and RWQCB and any required permitting processed prior to City approval. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable).

A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-11: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan that provides sufficient supporting documentation and calculations to the Salinas Public Works Department to address sediment transport issues of fine-grained materials from upstream and local sources that could clog infiltration capacities and could fill required storage space within the stormwater basins at the downstream boundaries of the project area to the extent practicable.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.6-8 through

3.6-15 be adopted. These mitigation
measures implement measures to
result the potential for flooding on- or
offsite, or to redirect flood flows.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
The calculations to address these sediment transport issues may include:
• A streamflow and sediment transport (bedload and suspended sediment) data collection monitoring program that begins one- to two-years pre-construction and continues through a mandated post-project timeframe and would provide volumetric information for calculations related to the potential for sediment deposition.
• Pre-project measurements could be used to estimate sediment loading, which could inform the design of mitigation measures and enable estimates of maintenance frequencies needed ensure ongoing efficacy of the measures.

During project execution and after project completion, measurements of bedload and suspended sediment in the channel at the downstream boundary of the project could be used to verify performance of sediment management measures and avoidance of associated sediment transport impacts. • The United States Geological Survey gage record on Gabilan Creek (#11152600) contains limited suspended sediment data that was collected in March and April of 2017. These data could be used to compare to and/or validate measurements obtained via field data collection.

Strategies and measures to address these sediment transport issues may include:
• Bioretention Basins: Bioretention basin features provide multiple water quality functions for stormwater systems, including performing as depositional areas for sediments that settle and get trapped in the bioretention media.

An operations and maintenance plan shall be used to address specific maintenance requirements related to sediment accumulation, such that basin media remediation would take place when a threshold condition (such as a certain amount of sediment accumulation on the basin floor) is reached. For instance, if sediment deposition exceeds a depth of 2-inches, even a small patch, the sediment would require removal to keep the basin functioning properly.

Furthermore, the functional lifespan of bioretention media (mulch, soils, drain rock, underdrain) is generally about 15 years. Annual monitoring reports could be used to track basin performance under varying wet season conditions and used to guide media replacement timing.
• Treatment Wetlands: Treatment wetlands are designed to mimic the natural infiltration, nutrient cycling, habitat, and a myriad of other important ecological functions provided by natural wetlands. Treatment wetlands could be constructed at storm drain outfall locations or adjacent to or off-channel from a creek channel. Wetlands could vary between those that are highly designed and may need relatively high levels of maintenance to more naturally based designs that may need more limited maintenance, each with varying levels of treatment potential.

Treatment performance is a function of wetland to watershed ratio, wetland treatment design, area hydrology, hydraulic residence time, and source pollutants. The preferred residence time through wetlands varies based on vegetation type and quantity, water depth, temperature, and design flow rates. Having a lower design flow rate can result in longer hydraulic residence time, which is preferred particularly at the start of a rainy No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
season, since the “first flush” volume of stormwater runoff will generally contain the highest concentrations of pollutants. Treatment wetland design generally considers dry season irrigation return flows and first flush principles. • Vegetated Banks/Riparian Corridor: Trees and other riparian corridor vegetation appropriate to the environment, such as willows, could grow rapidly on channel banks and trap sediments, removing sediment from streamflows as well as from local surface runoff.
• Floodplains: Floodplains provide one of the most important storage spaces for sediment as it moves discontinuously through a watershed. Naturally functioning floodplains generally extend laterally past the immediate riparian buffer zone into relatively flat areas. Floodplain access could be provided by bank and channel grading at specified design storm flows. The rate of sediment deposition on floodplains is largely dependent on the frequency of inundating flows, the suspended sediment loads in the river, available floodplain area, and presence of vegetation.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-12: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide an Operation and Maintenance Plan as part of the Stormwater Control Plan with sufficient supporting documentation and calculations for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department demonstrating that risks associated with reduction of infiltration capacity in the detention/retention/water quality basins shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-13: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with sufficient supporting documentation and calculations that the risks associated with basin embankment side slope failure because of the non-cohesive nature of Gabilan and Natividad Creek corridor sediments will be minimized to the extent practicable.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-14: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department such that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed by the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed and subsequently approve the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the project.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-15: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures such that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with embankment side slope failures are addressed by the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with embankment side slope failures are addressed and subsequently approve the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the project.

All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.

Impact 3.6-7: The project has the potential to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or
redirect flood flows (Less than Significant)
The project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (DEIR,
pp. 3.6-45)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.6-8: The project has the potential to risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation as a
result of flooding, tsunami, or seiche zones (Less than Significant)
The project is not located in an area that is subject
to tsunamis, seiches, or significant flooding (with
mitigation measures outlined in Impact 3.6-6.

Mitigation Measures 3.6-7 through 3.6-14 require
a LOMR-F, detailed grading plans and
calculations which show how the project would
raise the land surface elevation above the base
flood elevation, design basis reports for creek
corridor restoration, calculations to address
sediment transport issues, calculations to address
basin embankment side slope failure, procedures
that address basin issues associated with
sedimentation, and procedures that address basin
issues associated with embankment side slope
failures. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-45 to 3.6-46)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Impact 3.6-9: Cumulative increases in peak
stormwater runoff from the plan area (Less than
Significant)
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 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. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-46 through 3.6-
47)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.6-10: Cumulative impacts related to
degradation of water quality (Less than Significant)
Compliance with City and County water quality
protection regulations, approval from the
RWQCB, and implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.6-1 would ensure that the Central Area
Specific Plan minimizes impacts to surface water
quality. The 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 storm
water quality. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-47 through 3.6-49)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.6-11: Cumulative impacts related to
degradation of groundwater supply or recharge
(Potentially Significant)
The 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 require maintaining
water quality standards and preserving the
infiltration of rainwater within the aquifer. The
project would not have cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with groundwater
supply/recharge. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-49 through 3.6-
50)
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-7. LTS Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.6-7 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-7 requires an
Operation and Maintenance Plan for
post-construction BMPs and
supplemental stormwater detention
basins in accordance with City of
Salinas stormwater development
standards. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.6-7 would
reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Impact 3.6-12: Cumulative impacts related to
flooding (Less than Significant)
Future development in the area must be sited and
designed in accordance with the aforementioned
City flood damage regulations (i.e., Article VI,
Flood Damage Prevention, of the City’s Code).

The 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 require designs that
ensure structures are outside the base flood
elevation and that storm water flows are
maintained to prevent downstream flooding. The
project would not have cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with flooding. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-
51 through 3.6-52)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
NOISE
Impact 3.7-1: The project has the potential to
increase traffic noise levels at existing receptors
(Potentially Significant)
As shown in Tables 3.7-8 through 3.7-11, some
noise-sensitive receptors located along the Specific
Plan Area roadways are currently exposed to
exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of
Salinas 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for
residential uses. These receptors would continue
to experience elevated exterior noise levels with
implementation of the project.

As shown in Table 3.7-8, the segment of
Natividad Road south of E. Boronda Road would
experience unacceptable noise levels under
Existing Plus Project conditions. The project
would cause noise levels along this segment to
increase by 1.6 dB.

As shown in Table 3.7-8, E. Boronda Road from
Constitution to N. Sanborn would experience
unacceptable noise levels under the Existing Plus
Project conditions.

As shown in Table 3.7-9, the following roadway
segments would experience unacceptable noise
levels under the Existing Plus Project Plus WASP
conditions:

Implement Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 and 3.7-8. SU Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 requires
adherence to the requirements of the
City of Salinas Municipal Code with
respect to hours of operation during
project construction. Mitigation
Measure 3.7-2 requires all equipment
to be fitted with factory equipped
mufflers and in good working order.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 requires
sound walls for residents located along
the primary Plan Area roadways,
adjacent to proposed residential
dwellings, in order to achieve the
City’s exterior noise standards.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 requires 3-
coat stucco and windows having a
Sound Transmission Class (STC) 35,
or higher, rating to be installed in
second floor facades and rooms that
have windows or doors that abut E.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
• E. Boronda Road from San Juan Grade
to McKinnon (results in a 1.9 dB
increase);
• E. Boronda Road from El Dorado to
Natividad (results in a 3.2 dB increase);
• E. Boronda Road from Natividad to
Independence (results in a 2.1 dB
increase);
• E. Boronda Road from Constitution to
N. Sanborn (results in an exceedance of
60 dB Ldn);
• E. Boronda Road from N. Sanborn to
Williams (results in an exceedance of
60 dB Ldn);
• Independence Blvd, south of Boronda
(results in a 3 dB increase);
• Natividad Road, south of Boronda
(results in a 3.6 dB increase);
• Natividad Road from E. Boronda to
Future Russell Rd (results in a 4.2 dB
increase);
• Russell Road, west of San Juan Grade
(results in a 3.1 dB increase).
(DEIR p. 3.7-13 through 3.7-22)
Boronda Road and/or Natividad
Road. Mitigation Measure 3.7-5
requires mechanical ventilation for the
first row of all residential dwellings
that abut E. Boronda Road and/or
Natividad Road. Mitigation Measure

3.7-6 requires the center of active play
areas, such as football fields, soccer
fields or other athletic fields, to be
located at a minimum distance of 90-
feet from the nearest residential
property lines. Mitigation Measure

3.7-7 includes various project design
requirements where commercial,
business professional, office, or similar
uses abut residential uses or where
loading docks or truck circulation
routes abut residential areas.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-8 includes
various project design requirements
fort the well and treatment plant
facilities.

Even with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 through

3.7-8, there is the potential for noise
levels to exceed the acceptable levels in
some cases if encroachment into
private property proves for the
construction of sounds walls proves to
be infeasible. Therefore, the impact is
significant and unavoidable.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

Impact 3.7-2: The project has the potential to
increase noise levels associated with construction
activities (Potentially Significant)
Noise would also be generated during the
construction phase by increased truck traffic on
area roadways. The project has the potential to
increase noise levels associated with construction
activities. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-23 and 3.7-24)
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, plans shall note that construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Salinas Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, plans shall note that all equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers and in good working order. All stationary noise generating equipment (i.e. generators) shall be located at least 200 feet from a sensitive receptor. All construction staging areas shall be located at least 200 feet from a sensitive receptor.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2
be adopted. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1
requires adherence to the requirements
of the City of Salinas Municipal Code
with respect to hours of operation
during project construction. Mitigation
Measure 3.7-2 requires all equipment
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
to be fitted with factory equipped
mufflers and in good working order.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.7-3: The project has the potential to
increase noise vibration association with construction
activities (Less Than Significant)
The project would not increase noise vibration
associated with construction activities. Therefore,
construction vibrations are not predicted to cause
damage to existing buildings or cause annoyance
to sensitive receptors. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-24 and 3.7-
25)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
Impact 3.7-4: The project has the potential to expose
new sensitive receptors to excessive transportation
noise (Potentially Significant)
Table 3.7-14 data indicate that noise barriers 6- to
8-feet in height would generally be sufficient to
achieve compliance with the City of Salinas 60 dB
Ldn exterior noise level standard for the proposed
residential uses. However, for the residential uses
located along E. Boronda Road, sound walls of 6-
to 8-feet in height would only reduce exterior
noise levels to 63 dB Ldn. While these noise level
do not meet the City’s preferred 60 dB Ldn noise
standards, they would comply with the City’s
conditionally acceptable standard of 60 to 70 dB
Ldn.

Based upon a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level
reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to
range between 38 dB to 46 dB Ldn at first floor
residences, and between 40 dB and 48 dB Ldn, at
second floor residences. Predicted interior noise
levels would exceed the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior
noise level standard at the first row of residential
uses located closest to Boronda Road and
Constitution Boulevard. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-25
through 3.7-26)
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans and respective permits, the plans shall note the location, design, and construction details of the eight-foot to nine-foot tall sound walls and/or landscaped berm/wall combinations, as applicable, that will be constructed along the primary Specific Plan Area roadways, adjacent to proposed residential dwellings, in order to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards. At the City’s discretion, wall heights which achieve the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard may be allowed. See the Draft EIR Table 3.7-14 for specific noise barrier/wall heights along each roadway. Additionally, at the City’s discretion, alternative noise reduction measures which achieve the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard may be allowed. Alternative noise reduction measures, such as building orientation and use of noise-attenuating features, can be utilized provided that a sitespecific acoustical analysis is conducted that demonstrates that the alternative methods would ensure that noise levels do not exceed the City’s conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Ldn noise standard.

Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the City of Salinas based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable. The design/appearance of the wall is subject to the design approval by the City of Salinas to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided.

Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City’s Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffiti. These graffiti prevention best management practices may include, without limitation:
(1) The use or the installation and maintenance of ant-graffiti materials and surface treatments approved by the City on likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. (2) Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 through 3.7-
5 be adopted. Mitigation Measure 3.7-
3 requires sound walls for residents
located along the primary Plan Area
roadways, adjacent to proposed
residential dwellings, in order to
achieve the City’s exterior noise
standards. Mitigation Measure 3.7-4
requires 3-coat stucco and windows
having a Sound Transmission Class
(STC) 35, or higher, rating to be
installed in second floor facades and
rooms that have windows or doors
that abut E. Boronda Road and/or
Natividad Road. Mitigation Measure

3.7-5 requires mechanical ventilation
for the first row of all residential
dwellings that abut E. Boronda Road
and Constitution Boulevard, as desired
for acoustical isolation, to keep their
doors and windows closed and still
maintain acceptable interior
temperature and noise levels.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
and/or protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
(3) Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
(4) Immediate removal of graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two hours. (5) Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
(6) Authorizing right of access by city employees or contract agents to remove graffiti if not removed within specified time periods.
(7) Supplying the city at its request with paint (of the appropriate color and type), cleaning agents, and/or other materials acceptable to the city to abate or to deter graffiti. (8) Other requirements, as deemed reasonably feasible by the city planner, to deter, to protect or to reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: Prior to the approval of building permits, the first row of residential dwellings located along E. Boronda Road and Constitution Boulevard shall include windows having a Sound Transmission Class (STC) 35, or higher, rating installed in second floor facades and rooms that have windows or doors that abut or face E.

Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard. Exterior walls shall also require 3-coat stucco and RC-channels, sheathing, or another acceptable construction application that effectively attenuates noise intrusion to the interior of the house. The exterior wall specifications would specifically apply to the first row of homes that abut or face E.

Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard and only apply to the facades facing these roadways. The specifications do not apply to single story homes, or the first floor of a twostory home, both of which are attenuated by the sound wall. These requirements shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. A detailed analysis of any additional interior mitigation measures shall be conducted when building plans are available and prior to building permit issuance to verify these requirements. These requirements shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: Prior to the approval of building permits, mechanical ventilation shall be required in the first row of all residential dwellings that abut E.

Boronda Road and Constitution Boulevard, as desired for acoustical isolation, to keep their doors and windows closed and still maintain acceptable interior temperature and noise levels. This requirement shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. This requirement shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.

Impact 3.7-5: The project has the potential to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial noise from proposed
park and school uses (Potentially Significant)
Children playing at neighborhood parks or
outdoor recreational fields (softball, soccer,
basketball, tennis) are often considered potentially
significant noise sources which could adversely
affect adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Typical
Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, as applicable, when parks or play areas are located near residential uses, the center of active play areas, such as football fields, soccer fields or other athletic fields, shall be located at a minimum distance of 90-feet from the nearest residential property lines. Large active play areas shall comply with the 60 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax standards, and shall include these further noise level evaluations during the design phases of future park areas.

Parks shall be designed such that residences front, or side in limited locations, where approved by the City Planner, to the park. Minimum 6-foot tall sound walls and/or LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.7-6 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-6 requires the
center of active play areas, such as
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
noise levels associated with groups of
approximately 50 children playing at 50 feet
generally range from 55 to 60 dB Leq and 70 to 75
dB Lmax. It is expected that park activities would
occur primarily during daytime hours. Therefore,
noise levels from the playgrounds would need to
comply with the City of Salinas exterior noise
level standards of 60 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the
nearest residential uses. (DEIR, pp. 3.7-29 and

3.7-30)
landscaped berms shall be constructed where school site directly abuts a residential property line in instances where site design (i.e., minimum distances, siting of activity areas, etc.) cannot achieve the 60 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax noise standards. No wall shall be required where residential uses are fronted towards a park or school site and separated by a roadway or a walkway.

Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. The design/appearance of the walls is subject to the design approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided. Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City’s Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffiti (see Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 for further discussion of best management practices).
football fields, soccer fields or other
athletic fields, to be located at a
minimum distance of 90-feet from the
nearest residential property lines.

Therefore, this impact is less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.7-6: The project has the potential to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial noise from proposed
commercial mixed-uses (Potentially Significant)
Mixed-use commercial land use activities can
produce noise levels which affect adjacent
sensitive land uses. The primary noise sources
generally include truck deliveries, trash pickup,
parking lot use, and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment operation.

These sources may result in noise levels exceeding
the City’s standards at nearby receptors. (DEIR,
pp. 3.7-30 through 3.7-31)
Mitigation Measure 3.7-7: Prior to the approval of development review permits, the plans shall demonstrate: where mixed use, commercial, business professional, office, or similar uses face residential uses or where loading docks or truck circulation routes face residential areas, the following measures shall be included in the project design:
• All HVAC equipment shall be located within mechanical rooms where possible or shielded from view with solid or grated barriers; • Emergency generators shall comply with the City’s noise criteria at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers;
• Delivery/loading activities shall comply with the Salinas Zoning Code standards and regulations; and
• The applicant shall submit a noise study to verify that the appropriate noise control measures have been incorporated into the project design and will achieve compliance with the City’s noise level standards.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.7-7 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-7 includes
various project design requirements
where commercial, business
professional, office, or similar uses
abut residential uses or where loading
docks or truck circulation routes abut
residential areas. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.7-7: The project has the potential to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial noise from proposed
well sites (Potentially Significant)
Typical noise levels for well sites at 50 feet are
expected to be 60 dB Leq. If a backup generator is
present and running, a noise level of 70 dB Leq at
50 feet would be expected. It is expected that wells
could operate during daytime or nighttime hours.

Long-term operation of the backup generator
would only occur under emergency conditions
Mitigation Measure 3.7-8: The potential well sites are shown in the Specific Plan. The actual wells are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the City pursuant to the requirements of the Salinas Zoning Code and the Central Area Specific Plan. The potential well sites and the CUP requirement for said facilities shall be clearly noted on the site improvement plans.

Prior to approval of the CUP and subsequent issuance of the building permits for the wells, the plans shall demonstrate that the following measures shall be included in the project design:
• The wells have been designed and will be built to not exceed a noise level of 55 dB Leq at the nearest residential or school property line during normal LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.7-8 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-8 includes
various project design requirements
fort the well and treatment plant
facilities. Therefore, this impact is less
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
and would therefore not be subject to the City of
Salinas exterior noise level standards for Class A
noise. However, weekly exercising of the
generator may be subject to the City’s 60 dB Leq
daytime exterior noise level standard at the
nearest noise-sensitive residential receptors.
(DEIR, pp. 3.7-32)
operation of the facilities;
• The generators shall not be permitted to exceed the City’s daytime noise standard of 60 dB Leq;
• The generators shall be tested only during daytime hours; and • Additionally, that the wells have been designed (in accordance with the Central Area Specific Plan) to incorporate decorative screen walls, landscaping and other features to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

Impact 3.7-8: Cumulative exposure of existing and
future noise-sensitive land uses to increased noise
resulting from cumulative development (Potentially
Significant)
Significant traffic noise increases under the
Cumulative Plus Project Plus CASP traffic
condition include the following segments:
• E. Boronda Road San Juan Grade to
McKinnon – noise levels are predicted to
increase by 1.7 dB from 65.4 dB to 67.1 dB
Ldn. This would exceed the FICON criteria
of +1.5 dB where no project noise levels are
greater than 65 dB, as outlined in Table 3.7-

7. • E. Boronda Road, Natividad to
Independence – noise levels are predicted to
increase by 2.0 dB from 66.8 dB to 68.8 dB
Ldn. This would exceed the FICON criteria
of +1.5 dB where no project noise levels are
greater than 65 dB, as outlined in Table 3.7-

7. • E. Boronda Road, Independence to
Hemmingway – noise levels are predicted to
increase by 2.1 dB from 65.5 dB to 67.6 dB
Ldn. This would exceed the FICON criteria
of +1.5 dB where no project noise levels are
greater than 65 dB, as outlined in Table 3.7-

7. • E. Boronda Road, Hemmingway to
Constitution – noise levels are predicted to
increase from 57.8 dB to 60.7 dB Ldn. This
would result in an exceedance of the City of
Salinas exterior noise level standard of 60 dB
Ldn.

No mitigation measures are feasible. CS and SU The EIR identified no mitigation measures to address this particular
significant effect on the environment.

Thus, the effect remains significant
and unavoidable, and no mitigation is
available to substantially lessen or
avoid the effect.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
• N. Sanborn Road, south of E. Boronda –
noise levels are predicted to increase from

59.1 dB to 60.7 dB Ldn. This would result in
an exceedance of the City of Salinas exterior
noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn.
• Natividad Road, E. Boronda to Future
Russell Road – noise levels are predicted to
increase by 3.4 dB from 64.4 dB to 67.8 dB
Ldn. This would exceed the FICON criteria
of +3 dB where no project noise levels are
between 60 to 65 dB, as outlined in Table

3.7-7.
• Old Stage Road, north of Future
Constitution Road – noise levels are
predicted to increase from 59.1 dB to 61.4
dB Ldn. This would exceed the City of
Salinas exterior noise level standard of 60 dB
Ldn. This is part of the WASP area where
future noise-sensitive uses would be located.
• Old Stage Road, Future Constitution Road
to Williams – noise levels are predicted to
increase from 58.7 dB to 60.2 dB Ldn. This
would exceed the City of Salinas exterior
noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn.
• Russell Road, West of San Juan Grade –
noise levels are predicted to increase by 2.3
dB from 65.5 dB to 67.8 dB Ldn. This would
exceed the FICON criteria of +1.5 dB where
no project noise levels are greater than 65
dB, as outlined in Table 3.7-7.
(DEIR, pp. 3.7-33 through 3.7-34)

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 3.8-1: The project has the potential to induce
substantial population growth in an area (Less Than
Significant)
The project development is within the
development types and intensities identified in the
General Plan and its associated Final Program
EIR. The project does not change limits, amount,
type, or intensity of development allowed in the
Specific Plan Area beyond what was analyzed in
the certified Final Environmental Impact Report
for the General Plan and Supplemental EIR for
the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
(SCH#2007031055). While there will be new
growth, no new or increased significant
population and housing impacts beyond those
identified and analyzed in the General Plan Final
Program EIR would occur.

Implementation of the Central Area Specific Plan
would provide job growth to the area and include
a maximum of 489,700 square feet of total
commercial space. The Salinas General Plan
designates land uses to ensure a balance between
new residential development and jobs-creating
uses. The Sphere of Influence Amendment Area
(inclusive of the Specific Plan Area) is planned for
up to 9.023 million square feet of
commercial/retail/mixed use, general industrial
uses, and public/semi-public uses (Final
Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final
Program EIR, 2007). The proposed maximum
489,700 square feet of total commercial space
developable by the project is within the
development capacities stated in the Salinas
General Plan.
(DEIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-20)
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Impact 3.8-2: Cumulative impact on the potential to
induce substantial population growth in an area (Less
Than Significant)
Development of the North of Boronda FGA is a
component of the City’s planned long-term
growth as identified in the City’s General Plan.

Infrastructure needed to support development of
the Specific Plan Area and the FGAs, and the
subsequent population, housing and employment
increases expected through implementation of the
Central Area Specific Plan, have already been
planned and evaluated. Additionally, all lands
within the General Plan jurisdiction have been
planned to accommodate growth within the City
have been evaluated in the General Plan FEIR.

The project does not change the intent, intensities,
or densities of land uses identified within the
General Plan; therefore, development of the
Specific Plan Area will not induce growth in the
Specific Plan Area, adjacent undeveloped parcels,
or within the City that has not already been
accounted for in the General Plan, and evaluated
for environmental impacts by the City in the Final
General Plan EIR.

The 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. (DEIR,
pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-21)
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)

PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 3.9-1: The project may require the
construction of fire department facilities which may
cause substantial adverse physical environmental
impacts (Potentially Significant)
The project would require the construction of fire
department facilities, which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts. (DEIR,
pp. 3.9-20 through 3.9-22)
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each dwelling unit (and prior to issuance of building permits for non-residential uses), the applicant shall pay all applicable project impact fees per the impact fee schedule.

LTS Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which avoid the significant
effects on the environment.

The City Council hereby directs that
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 be adopted.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 requires
payment of the project impact fees for
each dwelling unit. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact 3.9-2: The project may result in, or have the
potential to require the construction of police
department facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts (Less Than
No mitigation measures are necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less
than significant. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
Significant)
The project would not result in, or have the
potential to require the construction of police
department facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts.

Development of the Specific Plan Area did not
directly trigger the need for a new facility;
however, additional staffing and patrols are
required to serve the proposed Specific Pan Area.

The City collects impact fees from new
development based upon projected impacts from
the development. The City also reviews the
adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to
ensure that the fee is commensurate with
anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on
a fair share basis for new development. (DEIR,
pp. 3.9-22 through 3.9-23)
15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.)
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 (Potentially Significant)
Physical impacts from construction of the school
sites within the Specific Plan Area would be
related to relevant environmental topics included
in this 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). 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 sitespecific impacts unknown at this time.

Project implementation may result in the need for
the construction of new schools, which has the
potential to cause substantial adverse physical
environmental impacts. Potential environmental
impacts associated with the future construction of
each school within the Plan Area are addressed
throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the
physical environmental effects that may occur as a
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each dwelling unit, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50 to the Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD), Alisal Union School District (AUSD), and/or Santa Rita Union School District (SRUSD) (only required for the SRUSD if the school district boundary adjustment between the SRUSD and the AUSD is not completed as anticipated) and provide documentation of said payment to the City.

Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10, 3.2-1 through 3.2-8, 3.3-1 through

3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1 through 3.5-4, 3.6-1 through 3.6-15, 3.7-1 through 3.7-8, 3.9-1 through

3.9-2, and Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-1 through 3.10-52.

SU Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 requires that
dwelling units pay the applicable
school fees mandated by SB 50 to the
relevant school districts. By law, this
mitigation is deemed sufficient to
mitigate the project’s impacts on
school facilities.

Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which mitigate the significant
effects on the environment associated
with school construction and
operation. Even so, the effects remain
significant and unavoidable, and no
additional mitigation is available to
fully avoid the effects.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
result of development and introduction of new
urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each
future school, if constructed, would fall within the
range of environmental impacts disclosed in this
EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation
measures included in this EIR.

Special legal principles apply to impacts to school
facilities. 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 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.

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.

As noted above, however, that development of a
school within the proposed Plan Area would
contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts
related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7),
biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-
12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4),
noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and
transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3,
and 3.10-4). (DEIR, pp. 3.9-20, 3.9-23 through

3.9-31; see also FEIR, pp. 2.0-109 – 2.0-136, 2.0-
146 – 2.0-164, 2.0-170 – 2.0-180)
Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation may result in
effects on parks, or has the potential to require the
construction of park facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental impacts
(Potentially Significant)
Physical impacts from construction of the park
sites within the Specific Plan Area would be
related to relevant environmental topics included
in this EIR, such as air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10, 3.2-1 through 3.2-8, 3.3-1 through

3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1 through 3.5-4, 3.6-1 through 3.6-15, 3.7-1 through 3.7-8, 3.9-1 through

3.9-2, and Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-1 through 3.10-52.

SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which mitigate the significant
effects on the environment. Even so,
the effects remain significant and
unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

The City Council concludes, however,
No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT

3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9
and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and

3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and
transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3,
and 3.10-4). A detailed discussion of relevant
operational and construction impacts can be
found in each respective section of this EIR.
(DEIR, pp. 3.9-31 through 3.9-32)
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

Impact 3.9-5: Project implementation may result in
effects on other public facilities (Potentially
Significant)
Project implementation may result in effects on
other public facilities. The Central Area Specific
Plan would result in new demand for public
facilities, including library facilities and
recreational facilities. The Specific Plan does
propose a library and potentially would include
other public facility such as a community building
within the Specific Plan Area; therefore,
development of these facilities would have a direct
physical impact on the environment. The Central
Area Specific Plan would be responsible for
paying the applicable impact fees, and ongoing
revenues from the Specific Plan would be
generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and
other appropriate fees/payments. Such
fees/payments would be the financial
contribution for any new demand created by the
Central Area Specific Plan as required by
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1. However, development
of public facilities within the Specific Plan Area
would contribute to significant and unavoidable
impacts related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and

3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9
and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and

3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and
transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3,
and 3.10-4) through the development of currently
undeveloped sites. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-32 through 3.9-
33)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10, 3.2-1 through 3.2-8, 3.3-1 through

3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1 through 3.5-4, 3.6-1 through 3.6-15, 3.7-1 through 3.7-8, 3.9-1 through

3.9-2, and Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-1 through 3.10-52.

SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Impact 3.9-6: Under cumulative conditions the
project may result in effects on public facilities
(Potentially Significant)
The construction and operation of future public
facilities required to serve cumulative
development (including the Central Area Specific
Plan Area) could potentially cause significant
impacts. Cumulative development including
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10, 3.2-1 through 3.2-8, 3.3-1 through

3.3-3, 3.4-1, 3.5-1 through 3.5-4, 3.6-1 through 3.6-15, 3.7-1 through 3.7-8, 3.9-1 through

3.9-2, and Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-1 through 3.10-52.

CS and SU Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the
project, which substantially lessen the
significant effects on the environment.

Even so, the effects remain significant
and unavoidable, and no additional
feasible mitigation is available to fully
avoid the effects.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
additional fire stations, parks, schools, library,
and other public facilities within the city and
service area would contribute to significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been
identified within this EIR related to: air quality
(Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources
(Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse
gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts

3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and
circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and 3.10-4). (DEIR,
pp. 3.9-33 through 3.9-35)
The City Council concludes, however,
that the Project’s benefits outweigh the
significant unavoidable impact of the
Project, as set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.10-1: Under Existing Plus Project
conditions, implementation of the proposed Specific
Plan would conflict with the performance measures
established by the City of Salinas, Monterey County,
and Caltrans (not an environmental effect)
Under Existing Plus Project conditions,
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan
would conflict with the performance measures
established by the City of Salinas, Monterey
County, and Caltrans. While the use of LOS
within CEQA is no longer permitted, the City
desires to manage congestion levels to maintain
consistency with its General Plan and the
County’s General Plan. Implementation of the
Specific Plan, without mitigations, results in
unacceptable operation at five of the study
intersections, and two of the U.S. 101 ramp
junctions. All study segments of U.S. 101
performed within the County CMP standards.
(DEIR, pp. 3.10-47 through 3.10-50)
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-1: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings at North Main Street/Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development).

Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-2: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the widening of the intersection at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive to add additional northbound and southbound through lanes, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). This improvement is part of the City’s Traffic Improvement Program. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-3: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of North Sanborn Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-4: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings and to add an eastbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Drive/La Posada Way, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development).

Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. This condition includes the addition of an eastbound left turn pocket and optimization of the existing signal timing to better accommodate the expected changes in traffic distribution and volume with implementation of the project. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the NI As of early 2019, “automobile delay,
as described solely by level of service
[LOS] or similar measures of vehicular
capacity or traffic congestion, shall not
be considered a significant impact on
the environment pursuant to [CEQA],
except in locations specifically
identified in the guidelines, if any.”
(DEIR, pp. 3.10-7 – 3.10-8, quoting
Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd.
(b)(2).) Even so, because the City’s
General Plan is concerned with LOS,
the EIR addressed the extent to which
the project would have effects on LOS.

The City Council hereby directs that
Recommended Conditions of
Approval 3.10-1 through 3.10-6 be
adopted. These conditions require
payment of the applicable fair-share
funding for the various improvements
that would be required in order to
improve traffic conditions at the
impacted study intersections and
ramps.

No Impact = NI Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Cumulative Significant = CS Significant and Unavoidable = SU Potentially Significant = PS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION)

MITIGATION MEASURES

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

FINDINGS OF FACT
intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-5: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the optimization of existing signal timings and splits at the South Sanborn/North Sanborn/John Street intersection, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for nonresidential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.

Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6: Prior to the approval of final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share funding to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Regional Development Impact Fee (RDIF) Program and the City of Salinas’ Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program, as determined by the TAMC and the City of Salinas, respectively, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant. These programs include improvements to U.S. 101 that would improve mainline and ramp junction operations, which would mitigate the project’s impact to the U.S. 101 ramp junctions affected by the project (i.e. the Northbound Boronda Road Off-Ramp and Northbound West Laurel Drive Off-Ramp.

Impact 3.10-2: Under Existing Plus Project and West
Area Specific Plan conditions, implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan may conflict with the
performance measures established by the City of
Salinas, Monterey County, and Caltrans (not an
environmental effect)
Under Existing Plus Project and West Area
Specific Plan conditions, implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan may conflict with the
performance measures established by the City of
Salinas, Monterey County, and Caltrans. While
the use of LOS within CEQA is no longer
permitted, the City desires to manage congestion
levels to maintain consistency with its General
Plan and the County’s General Plan.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result
in unacceptable operation at ten of the study
intersections, and two of the U.S. 101 ramp
junctions, under the Existing Plus Project and
Central Area Specific Plan scenario. All study
segments of U.S. 101 performed within the
County CMP standards. (DEIR, pp. 3.10-57
through 3.10-61)
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-7: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding for the installation of a traffic signal at San Juan Grade Road/Van Buren Avenue, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development).