Salinas City Council
August 6, 2024

City of Salinas

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SALINAS 65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor • Salinas, California 93901 RICH IN LAND | RICH IN VALUES (831) 758-7387 • (831) 775-4258 (Fax) • www.ci.salinas.ca.us

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This form is intended to assist the lead agency (eg., the City of Salinas), pursuant to Section 15183 of he CEQA Guidelines and Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code, in assessing Project 'onsistent with a General Plan, Community Plan, or Zoning Action for which a prior environmental impac

1. Project title: Tentative Map 2021-001 (TM 2021-001)

2. Lead agency name and address: Cityof Salinas, Community Development Department 65 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93901

3. Contact person and phone number: Thomas Wiles, Senior Planner, (831) 758- 7206

4. Project location: Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 153-091-015-000

5. Project sponsor's name and address: Stonebridge Homes, c/o Hugh Walker, 1540 Constitution Boulevard, Salinas, CA 93905

6. General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use, Residential-High Density, Residential- Medium Density, Residential-Low Density, Public/Semipublic, Park, Open Space

7. Zoning: Neighborhood Edge A and B (NE-A and NE-B), Neighborhood General A, B, and C (NG-A, NG-B, and NG-C), Village Center A and B (VC-A and VC-B), Park (P), Open Space (OS) and Public/Semipublic (PS) with Central Area Specific Plan Overlay District (SP-11), and Flood Overlay (F) Zoning Districts.

8. Prior Environmental Document (s) Analyzing the Effects of the Project (including State Clearinghouse Number if assigned): Environmental Impact Report for Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) (SCH # 2017091022)

9. Description of project: A request to subdivide an existing 189.27-acre lot into 427 residential lots with an additional 10 park and open space lots (437 lots total) (portion of Central Area Specific Plan (CASP)) for a proposed total of 1,674 dwelling units.

10. Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Setting/Zoning Districts:

North: Agricultural / Park (P), Open Space (OS) and Public/Semipublic Districts South: Residential, Park, and School / Parks (P), Public/Semipublic (PS), and Residential Low Density (R-L-5.5)
East: Agricultural / New Urbanism Interim (SP-NI)
West: Agricultural / Neighborhood Edge A and B (NE-A and NE-B), CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Neighborhood General A, B and C (NG-A, NG-B, and NG-C), Parks (P)

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Cal Water Service Company (Cal Water), Alisal Water Corporation (ALCO), Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS - District 5), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - Central Coast Region, United Stated Army Corps of Engineer's (USACE), Alisal Union School District, Salinas Union High School District, Santa Rita Union School District.

12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? This environmental checklist has been sent to the following California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area: Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Indian Canyon Mutsun Bank of Coastanoan, Xolon Salinan Tribe, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Torre Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Amah Mutsun Tribal Bank, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, and Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians - Tribal Elder's Council.

Introduction to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether one or more existing environmental documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Reports [EIRs])_already provide adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. If an earlier analysis is used, an Initial Study checklist, sometimes with modifications compared with the standard format found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, can be used to: a) identify the earlier analyses and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified EIR for a General Plan, community plan, or zoning action for a proposed project consistent with the approved General Plan, community plan, or zoning action. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

consistent with such prior planning decisions.

Subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21083.3 provides that "ilf a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an [EIR] was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of ICEQA] to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior [EIR], or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior [EIR]."
Subdivision (b) of section 21083.3 lays out similar principles for proposed projects consistent with previously approved General Plans for which EIRs have been certified.

Under subdivision (b), if a development project is consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified, the application of CEQA shall be limited to effects on the environment that are "peculiar to the parcel or to the project" and that were not addressed as significant effects in the prior EIR, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR.

Subdivision (d) of the statute further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered "peculiar to the parcel or to the project," "if uniformly applied development policies or standards" have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. CEQA Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (f), adds that "w]here a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision making body of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project." Under these provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that was adopted pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially partially or wholly exempt from further CEQA analyses.

Section 15183 provides more detailed guidance than can be found in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 itself. Section 15183, subdivision (b), provides that, for any proposed project that is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, the agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b).)
Guidelines Section 15183, subdivision (c), further provides that "if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards...then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact." "[Development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located.... Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance." (Guidelines, § 15183, subd.

Reliance on EIR for Central Area Specific Plan
The Salinas City Council certified the Final EIR for the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) on November 17, 2020. At the same time, the City Council also approved the CASP, rezoned the property subject to the CASP, and approved a Development Agreement. The action rezoning the subject property reclassified approximately 760 acres of land from "New Urbanism" interim zoning with a "Specific Plan" overlay district to the following: Neighborhood Edge A and B/Low Density Residential, Neighborhood General A, B, C /Medium Density Village Center A/High Density and Village Center B/ High Density and Mixed Use, Park, Open Space and Public/Semipublic for the Central Area Specific Plan. Because the CASP EIR also supported this rezoning action, the EIR qualifies as an EIR for a "zoning action" within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

The CASP EIR, relying on Section 15183, relied for some environmental impact issues on the City's earlier Final EIR for the City's General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). (See CASP Draft EIR, § 1.8, pp. 1.0-15 - 1.0-20.) As to those CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

issues, the CASP EIR summarized the prior analyses on the issues in question. These issues included the following broad categories or specific topics falling within broad categories: Aesthetics; Agriculture and Forest Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Recreation; and Transportation.

On Page ES-1, the CASP EIR stated that "ItJhe City of Salinas (City) has determined that a program-level environmental impact report (EIR) is required for the proposed Central Area Specific Plan (herein the Specific Plan or Plan Area Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is noted, however, that the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. Where sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR." (Italics added.) Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The Project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects.
• Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry X Air Quality
Resources
Biological Resources X Cultural Resources • Energy
Geology/Soils X Greenhouse Gas * Hazards &
Emissions Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning X Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing X Public Services
Recreation Transportation X Tribal Cultural
• Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Resources
• Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously discussed, or that uniformly applied development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed. • I find that the proposed project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

or are more significant than discussed in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applied development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
• I find that the proposed project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant that discussed in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applied development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and a project-specific ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA Prepared by: Thomas Wiles, Senior Planner Dated:June 28, 2024 Signature: Dated: 6/28/24
EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported in the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to project like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explaining where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) For the purposes of this checklist, "prior EIR" means the environmental impact report certified for a General Plan, Community Plan, or Zoning Action, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents.
4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of a proposed project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measure have been incorporated into the project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

5) If the projects would cause a significant adverse effect that either is peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applied development policies or standards that have been adopted by a city or county preparing the checklist (e.g., City of Salinas) would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the project's implementation of the uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect.
6) If all effects of a project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards, CEQA does not apply to the project, and the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination following project approval (if such approval occurs).
7) Effects of a project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applied development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject CEQA. With respect to those effects of the project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significance with mitigations, or less than significant. If there are one or more "Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, a project-specific EIR is required. The detailed analysis within the project-specific EIR should be limited to those effects determines to be significant. Brief discussions of less than significant effects will suffice. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15128). 8) "New Less Than Significant Impact or New Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the prior EIR does not adequately or fully address a newly identified impact and the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of a project that is subject to CEQA from "Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." Where any such new impacts are identified, the lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the newly identified effects of a project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration. 9) The explanations of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

significant.

CHECKLIST
Impact
Vew Less
Significant
Substantially
Mitigated by
Applied
Issue Impact Fully Development
in Prior Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
EIR Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

1. AESTHETICS. Would the
project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage • L
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
(c) In non-urbanized areas, • •
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of
(Public
views are those that are
experienced i from a
publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the
project is in an urbanized
conflict with
zoning
regulations
scenic
(d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Impact Fully levelopmen
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies of
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
Responses (a), (b), (c), and (d): Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources. Scenic views are elements of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic resources are specitic teatures of a viewshed such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) identified several scenic elements including the following:
• Citywide Aesthetics
• Gateways
• Views from Highway 101
• Urban/Agricultural Edges
• Architectural Resources
Of the scenic elements provided above, the CASP did not affect gateway areas to the City or views from Highway 101. These two topics therefore were not discussed further, in the CASP EIR, but the other three scenic elements are discussed below.

Citywide Aesthetics: As the CASP DRAFT EIR explained on Page 1.0-16, 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 future development under the General Plan has the potential to change the visual character of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 Future Growth Areas (FGAs), which includes the CASP, 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 CASP, would be required to comply with the regulations, policies, and standards developed pursuant to the above-referenced General Plan mitigation measures. Implementation of the CASP, including individual tentative maps, will 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 CASP EIR utilized the earlier analysis of this topic provided 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) pursuant to the tiering requirements of CEQA. The CASP EIR addresses this topic in light of the previous impact conclusions in those certified EIRs.

Urban/Agricultural Edges: The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that General Plan buildout will allow development to occur on and adjacent to land used for agricultural operations. The expansion of development into these areas may modify certain areas of the community that currently have distinct urban/agricultural edges.

To minimize and mitigate the impacts on Urban/Agricultural Edges, the Final Environmental Impact Report, , Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented the following six mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure A1 requires the City to implement the City's Gateway Guidelines; Mitigation Measure A2 requires the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

City to strengthen and require compliance with the City's Design Guidelines; Mitigation Measure A5 requires the City to review all discretionary projects for aesthetics impacts; Mitigation Measure A6 requires the City to encourage the maintenance and provision of buffers between urban and agricultural uses; Mitigation Measure A7 requires the City to continue to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs growth away from the most productive farmland in the Salinas Planning Area; and Mitigation Measure A8 requires the City to encourage City centered growth through infill projects and incentives. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential urban/agricultural edge impacts 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 Future Growth Areas (FGAs), which includes the Specific Plan Area, 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 General Plan, which includes all development under the CASP and tentative subdivision maps under the CASP, will be required to comply with the regulations, policies, and standards developed pursuant to the above- referenced General Plan mitigation measures. Implementation of the CASP, including tentative maps thereunder, 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). The CASP EIR utilized earlier analysis of this topic provided 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) pursuant to the tiering requirements of CEQA. The EIR will addresses this topic in light of the previous impact conclusions in those certified EIRs.

Architectural Resources: The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted new development and rehabilitation projects may impact significant architectural resources in the community in two primary ways: 1) new development and rehabilitation projects may be proposed that would be architecturally and stylistically incompatible with existing architectural resources, detracting from the existing resources' aesthetic value and contributing to visual discontinuity in neighborhoods that have a concentration of significant architectural resources; and 2) new development and rehabilitation projects may be proposed that would result in the removal of significant architectural resources or that would modify the structure so that the aesthetic value of the structure is destroyed.

To minimize and mitigate the impacts on Urban/Agricultural Edges, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

presented the following three mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure A5 requires the City to review all discretionary projects for aesthetics impacts; Mitigation Measure A9 requires the City to expand participation in the California Main Street Program; and Mitigation Measure A10 requires the City to consider implementing a historic/architectural preservation program. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential urban/agricultural edge impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Subsequently, the Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAWIAECOM 2007) indicated that aesthetic impacts associated with the FGAs, which includes the CASP, 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 CASP (including tentative maps), would be required to comply with the regulations, policies, and standards developed pursuant to the above- referenced General Plan mitigation measures. Implementation of the proposed project, including tentative maps thereunder, 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).

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
No mitigation is required. The General Mitigation Measures discussed above imposed duties on the City of Salinas, and not on individual property owners within the CASP.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant Applied
Disclosed with Impact Fully Development
Issue in Prior Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

2. AGRICULTURAL
RESOURCES. Would the
project:
(a) Convert Prime D X
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown
on the maps pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program
the California
Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
(b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act
contract?
(c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code
12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code
Section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Tamberla de inproduction
(as defined
Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
Result in the loss of •
(d)
forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-
forest use?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
New Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact
Less than
Significant
with Impact Fully
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR
(e) Involve other changes •
in the existing
environment which, due
to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use
Discussion
Responses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e): As the CASP Draft EIR explained on Pages 1.0- 16 and 1.0-17, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) noted that General Plan buildout would result in the conversion of 3,525 acres designated for agriculture to urban uses. Much of the conversion of the agricultural land within the City limits would be for urban uses and parks. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) 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) noted that the City would work to preserve important agricultural lands located to the south and west of the City and within the Salinas Planning Area, and as part of the General Plan process, the community of Salinas indicated that land designated for future growth outside the City limits should be minimized to protect the valuable agricultural resources. The GAs were established in the north of Salinas, north of Boronda Road, and east of the Salinas Municipal Airport, which are all located away from the best agricultural lands in the south and west. The approved CASP itself and the proposed project are located within the North of Boronda Road Future Growth CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Area, which is one of the areas specifically identified for future growth. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) notes that a significant impact associated with the conversion of agricultural land in the Future Growth Areas (FGAs) to residential and other urban uses and potential compatibility issues are anticipated.

To minimize and mitigate the impacts from the conversion of agricultural land in the FGAs and potential compatibility issues, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented the following five mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure AG1 requires the City to continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding (GSA-MOU), which directs City growth to occur generally to the north and east away from the most productive farmland; Mitigation Measure AG2 requires the City to give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on agricultural lands; and Mitigation Measure AG3 requires implementation of the "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance. This includes noticing residential development within 1,000 feet of an established agricultural operation 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 specifically states 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 also states that a person's right to recover under a nuisance claim against these activities may be restricted; and Mitigation Measure AG4 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.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) concluded that with the implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measures AG1 through AG4, the impacts on potential compatibility issues would be reduced to a less than significant level; however, while the impacts on agricultural conversion would be reduced to the extent feasible, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain related to the loss of important farmland. Mitigation AG5 specifically addressed Agricultural Land Conservation Easement Program, which states that the City will work with the County of Monterey, and other local jurisdictions, to create and implement an agricultural land conservation easement program including such measures as securing the dedication of easements or by paying a mitigation fee that could be used to purchase easements through a mitigation bank. Additionally, in 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19422, approving the Agricultural Land Preservation Program. The resolution adopted a 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 CASP, 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 CASP and tentative maps approved thereunder, would be required to comply with the regulations, policies, and standards developed pursuant to the above-referenced General Plan mitigation measures. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). The conversion of prime agricultural land is an impact within the scope of the programmatic analysis in the Final EIR and Final Supplemental EIR for the General Plan (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, subdivision (c), and 15183, subdivision (c)). Per the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Central Area Specific Plan dated November 17, 2020.

Response b): The Specific Plan Area is currently zoned Neighborhood Edge A and B (NE-A AND NE-B), Neighborhood General A, B and C (NG-A, NG-B, and NG-C), Village Center A (VC-A), Village Center B (VC-B), Park (P), Open Space (OS) and Public/Semipublic with Specific Plan Overlay and Floor Overlay districts; therefore, there are no conflicts with land zoned as farmland. The Specific Plan Area is not under a Williamson Act contract; therefore, there are no conflicts with Williamson Act contracts. With respect to agricultural resources, as per the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Central Area Specific Plan (EIR) dated June 26, 2020, no further analysis beyond that found in the program EIR (2007 Final Supplement for the Salinas General Final Program EIR) was determined to be necessary. This conclusion applies to the proposed tentative subdivision map as well as to the CASP itself.

Responses c), d): The Specific Plan Area is currently zoned Neighborhood Edge A and B (NE-A AND NE-B), Neighborhood General A, B and C (NG-A, NG-B, and NG-C), Village Center A (VC-A), Village Center B (VC-B), Park (P), Open Space (OS) and Public/Semipublic with Specific Plan Overlay and Floor Overlay districts, and used exclusively for row crop/agricultural production; therefore, there are no conflicts with land zoned as forest land, timberland, or timber land production. The Specific Plan Area does not have any forest resources; therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As stated above, with respect to agricultural resources, as per the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Central Area Specific Plan (EIR) dated June 26, 2020, no further analysis beyond that found in the program EIR (2007 Final Supplement for the Salinas General Final Program EIR) was determined to be necessary. This conclusion applies to the proposed tentative CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

subdivision map as well as to the CASP itself.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
No mitigation is required. The General Mitigation Measures discussed above imposed duties on the City of Salinas, and not on individual property owners within the CASP.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable.

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Substantially
More or New Impact Mitigated by
Severe Less than Uniformly
Impact Not Significant Applied
Disclosed with Impact Fully Development
Issue in Prior Mitigation No Analyzed ir Policies or
EIR Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

3. AIR QUALITY. Would the
project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct • •
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(b) Result in cumulatively • • •
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
air quality
standard?
(c) Expose sensitive receptors X
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(d) Result in other emissions • •
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the air quality effects of the proposed tentative subdivision map, in part due to the comprehensive character of the mitigation measures required to reduce air pollutant emissions. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the air quality impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Responses (a), (b), and (c),: Salinas lies within the North Central Coast Air Basin, which meets the federal standard for ozone levels but falls short of the higher State standards for ozone and PM10. Ozone is the primary constituent of smog and is formed in the atmosphere via a chemical reaction involving nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic gases (VOC), and sunlight. The primary sources are motor vehicles, organic solvents, pesticides, and industry. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) oversees various air quality regulations and programs.

MBARD Board of Directors adopted the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan in March 2017 which represents the latest edition of the 2012 Triennial Plan, which addresses NOx and reactive organic gasses (ROG) emissions as precursors to ozone. The air quality impact generated by the project is expected to be less than significant, because it will create less than a significant number of vehicle trips. As a part of the Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD) approval, it shall be required that the Applicant or successor in interest contact the MBARD regarding the potential requirement for a District permit for any standby engine/generators.

The revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines prepared by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, dated February 2008, stipulate maximum thresholds for air quality as follows:
a) Emit less than 137 Ib/day of VOC's or NOx;
b) Directly emit less than 550 Ib/day of CO or will not cause a violation of CO ambient air quality standards (AAQS) at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors;
Not significantly impact traffic levels of service or will not cause a violation of CO or contribute 550 Ib/day to an existing or projected violation at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors;
Directly emit less than 82 Ib/day of PM10 on-site or will not cause a violation of particulate matter, ten-micron diameter (PM10) AAQS or contribute 82 Ib/day to an existing or projected violation at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors;
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

e) Not indirectly generate PM10 along unpaved roads or will not cause a violation of PM10 AAQS or contribute 82 Ib/day to an existing projected violation at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors; f) Directly emit less than 150 Ib/day of sulfur oxide (SOx) or will not cause a violation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) AAQS at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors.

Response (d): Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, significant impact on the environment associated with air quality will occur it if generates emissions that will result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) that will affect a substantial number of people. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the MBARD. The general nuisance rule (California Health and Safety Code §41700) and Air District Rule 402 is the basis for the threshold.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of odors include: wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g. auto body shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant. None of these facilities are permitted within the Specific Plan Area.

If a project proposes to locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, further analysis may be warranted. However, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted. Neither the CASP itself nor the proposed tentative subdivision map proposed to locate new sensitive receptors that could be exposed to odors in the vicinity; nor do the CASP or tentative map propose uses that would create odors that could expose receptors in the area. Air district Rule 402 prohibits any mobile or stationary source generating an objectionable odor, with the exception of odors emanating from certain agricultural operations. The California Health and Safety Code §41700 and Air District Rule 402 prohibit emissions of air contaminants from any source that cause nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of people or that present a threat to public health or cause property damage. Compliance with these rules would preclude land uses proposed under the proposed project from emitting objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors are unlikely to be produced by the project because no odor generating activities will be permitted within project area The MBARD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a list of mitigation measures that would help the proposed project comply with the MBARD 2012-2015 AQMP. The mitigation measures provided within this air quality discussion (i.e. throughout the impact analysis provided in Section 3.1: Air Quality of the Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dated November 2020) have been designed to be consistent with the Mitigation Measures provided in the MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, where applicable (see below). As approved, the Specific Plan is CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

expected to be built out under a staged approach, and all mitigation would be applicable to each stage. The proposed tentative map represents one such discrete stage.

However, even with the application of mitigation measures, operational emissions levels (e.g. ROG, NOx, and PM10) would remain above the defined thresholds of significance.

Exceedance of the threshold within an area designated as nonattainment would be a cumulatively considerable impact. As such, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable impact on the region's air quality.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
The following Mitigation Measures for Air Quality stated in the adopted Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dated November 2020 shall be required for any future development in the project area, including the proposed tentative subdivision map:

Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Prior to approval of tentative maps, conditional use permits or site plan review, the project applicants) 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 applicants) 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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Prior to approval of development review permits), the project applicants) 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 applicants) 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 applicants) 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 applicants) 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, applicable, the project applicants) shall ensure 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 permits), the project applicants) 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 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 applicants) 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 atter 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;
• Install adaptive traffic control systems;
• Install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.

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 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 stockpiles, during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);
• Limit vehicle speed on construction sites to 15 mph.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

• 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 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.

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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 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.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
Impact
New Less
New Than
Significant Simple or
Impact or
More New Impact
Severe
Significant
with Impact Fully
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in
Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
•
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Significant Applied
Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
(b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
(0) Have a substantial adverse •
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Interfere substantially with •
(d)
the movement of any
native resident
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wildlife • nursery sites?
(e) Conflict with any local D
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Appled
Significant
with Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
Conflict with the provisions
of • •
an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
Overall conclusion. The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the biological resource effects of the proposed tentative subdivision map, in part due to the comprehensive character of the mitigation measures required to reduce air pollutant emissions. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the biological resource impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Responses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f): The City of Salinas is located in the middle portion of the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California. The Coast Ranges are northwest-trending mountain ranges (2,000 to 4,000, occasionally 6,000 feet elevation above sea level), and valleys. The ranges and valleys trend northwest, subparallel to the San Andreas Fault. The geologic strata dips beneath alluvium of the Great Valley to the east. To the west is the Pacific Ocean. The coastline is uplifted, terraced and wave- cut. The Coast Ranges are composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata. The northern and southern ranges are separated by a depression containing the San Francisco Bay. The City of Salinas lies within the southern range.

The Specific Plan Area is located within the City of Salinas incorporated limits.

However, a portion (approximately 85 acres of land) of the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan Area has not yet been annexed by the City. This land (along with the rest of the Plan Area) is located in the City's Sphere of Influence and has been included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

the Central Area Specific Plan for conceptual planning purposes. The Specific Plan Area is bounded by Natividad Road on the west, East Boronda Road (herein 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. Highway 101 (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.

The majority of the Specific Plan Area is relatively flat, with the bluffs of the on-site creeks containing the greatest slope area. The bluffs vary from approximately five feet to 30 feet above the creek floodplains. The bluff's slopes range between 20:1 and 4:1 (horizontal to vertical). However, the actual creek banks do experience slopes steeper than 4:1 in some instances. A 25-foot-high terrace near the middle of the Specific Plan Area divides the two drainage basins. The Specific Plan Area generally slopes from a northerly to southerly direction towards Boronda Road. The overall topographic relief is approximately 76 feet, with a maximum elevation of approximately 146 feet above sea level at the northeast corner on Old Stage Road, and a minimum elevation of approximately 70 feet above sea level at Natividad Creek in the Boronda Road crossing.

The Specific Plan Area is currently being farmed and contains limited development.

Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. The Specific Plan Area has been heavily disturbed for years from agricultural practices. The Specific Plan Area is currently agricultural land, consisting of row crop agriculture. Two creeks cross through the Specific Plan Area: Gabilan Creek in the west and Natividad Creek in the east.

Natividad Creek has three tributaries that connect onsite and continue south. Much of the Specific Plan Area has been heavily disturbed from its natural conditions as a result of years of cultivation. Urban development consists of several residences throughout the Specific Plan Area, several storage barns, a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) subs- station near the northern boundary, and a drainage ditch near the eastern boundary.

Three PG&E transmission lines are also located in the center of the Specific Plan Area.

Existing infrastructure is currently located along Boronda Road, Hemingway Drive, and Constitution Boulevard, including water, sewer, overhead electricity, storm drainage, and natural gas utilities. PG&E currently operates a 12 kV overhead power line along Old Stage Road and Williams Road. A 12 kV underground primary line exists along Boronda Road. PG&E also maintains 112 Kv transmission lines and corresponding easements along the northwest side of Old Stage Road, westerly along the proposed Russell Road alignment, and southerly down the middle of the Specific Plan Area.

PG&E plans to install a substation near the intersection of the proposed Russell Road alignment and the central north to south transmission lines.

Land to the north of the Specific Plan Area is currently used primarily for agricultural production with some scattered residences along Old Stage Road. Further to the north CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

is the unincorporated community of Natividad, near the corner of the intersection of Old Natividad Road and Old Stage Road. Scattered residences and other non-residential uses are located within Natividad. These land uses are all located in the unincorporated area of Monterey County and are currently zoned F/40 (Farmlands, 40 acres per unit).

Land to the east of the Specific Plan Area is currently used primarily for agriculture and is zoned New Urbanism Interim (with a Specific Plan Overlay District). This area is located in the North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA) and a Specific Plan (referred to as the East Area Specific Plan), comprised of approximately 929 acres, is planned for this area, however, no formal application has been submitted to the City for consideration to date.

The Specific Plan will have a mix of urban land uses, similar to those proposed for the Central Area Specific Plan. Development of the future East Area Specific Plan is expected to include approximately 4,000 dwelling units and supporting uses such as village center/commercial uses. comprised of approximately 929 acres. Across Boronda Road directly to the south are predominantly existing single-family and multifamily residential uses. Everett Alvarez High School is also located directly to the south of the Specific Plan Area. The land uses directly abutting the Specific Plan Area are zoned Low and Medium Density Residential and Public/Semipublic, respectively.

Four elementary schools are also located further to the south. The majority of the larger area south of the Specific Plan Area is known as "Creekbridge". In addition, to the land uses previously noted above, a commercial/mixed use shopping center as well as office uses are also located in this area.

Across Natividad Road directly to the west, is area subject to the approved West Area Specific Plan. Though the property is presently used for agriculture, the portion of the West Area Specific Plan, which directly abuts the Plan Area is planned primarily for uses low and medium density residential uses, supplemental detention basins and a water well facility. These uses are zoned Neighborhood EdgelLow Density Residential, Neighborhood General\Medium Density Residential, Open
Space and
Public/Semipublic, respectively. A Specific Plan Overlay District is also applicable to the entire West Area Specific Plan Area. Located farther to the west (within the West Area Specific Plan) is the existing two existing schools: McKinnon Elementary School (Santa Rita Union School District), and the Rancho San Juan High School (Salinas Union High School District), both of which are located on property zoned Public/Semipublic.

The Specific Plan Area primarily consists of vacant farm fields that have been leveled for agricultural use. This area is currently being farmed and contains limited development. Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. Other vegetation types include remnant patches of annual grassland and oak woodlands, ruderal (weedy) fields, riparian vegetation along Natividad Creek and its unnamed tributaries, and aquatic riparian habitat in irrigation ponds. There are a few trees located in the Specific Plan Area. The on-site trees include landscape trees, which are located in the western and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

southern portions of the Specific Plan Area, and willow trees, which are located along Natividad Creek and its unnamed tributaries.

The majority of the Specific Plan Area is in intensive row-crop production. The Specific Plan Area is currently in agricultural production with periodic changes in crops and tilled land area. Figure 3.4-3 depict the areas in active agriculture (i.e., row-crops, tilled fields or greenhouses) as of July 2004. Typical crops include strawberries and lettuce. Wildlife use of agricultural fields is largely limited to opportunistic foraging by blackbirds, ground squirrels and hares, due to frequent disturbances from farming activities. However, the habitat values will vary depending on the frequency of disturbance, and crop type. For example, fallow fields may temporarily support a level of use similar to that of grasslands, when allowed two produce ruderal vegetation, and perennial crops, such as strawberry fields, may even support nesting by killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and homed larks, which prefer the bare areas between the rows. The grassland habitat value in the Specific Plan Area is likely moderated due to the fragmented nature of the remaining habitat patches and management activities, such as disking. Representative species include ornate shrew, gopher, western harvest mouse, California meadow vole, California ground squirrel, black-tailed hare, American badger, striped skunk, coyote, red fox, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, horned lark, western meadowlark, savanna sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, and gopher snake.

The Final EIR stated that even though there are numerous special-status invertebrates documented within the 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 CASP 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. Therefore, the CASP would have a less than significant impact on special-status invertebrate species. This same conclusion applies to the proposed tentative subdivision map.

There are numerous special-status amphibians and reptiles that are documented within the region. The Specific Plan Area was assessed for habitat to support special-status amphibians/reptiles. Based on field surveys and records searches, three species warranted a more detailed evaluation within the CASP EIR due to the habitat conditions including California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), California red- legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii), and foothill yellow legged frog (FYLF) (Rana boylii).

Per the Final EIR, California Tiger Salamander (CTS) is documented in an agricultural basin located within the Specific Plan Area, as well as areas to the northeast and east CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

of the Specific Plan Area. The basin within the Specific Plan Area is 0.25 acres in size located on the east side of Natividad Road. There were 30 larvae observed on September 5, 2007. Twenty-two larval tail clippings collected for genetic testing indicated that the larvae are hybrids. This documented occurrence is a metapopulation of hybrid tiger salamanders.

The entire Specific Plan Area is within the 1.3 miles migration distance for 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.

It is noted that this population has been genetically evaluated and has been determined to be a hybrid population and is not a distinct population segment (DPS). The Final EIR includes mitigation measures that require consultation with the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no illegal take for CTS. Additionally, the regulatory agencies have established avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that they impose on projects through the regulatory permitting process. These measures require activities to avoid and minimize impacts to CTS. 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 CTS to be responsible for overseeing any hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with a scientific collecting permit every 72 hours during the migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CTS migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CTS found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 7) post construction report.

The regulatory agencies may also require compensatory mitigation for any take, including habitat loss. This is anticipated to apply to the loss of the aquatic breeding site within the basin along Natividad Road. The regulatory agencies are anticipated to require dewatering of the basin during the aestivation period when the CTS is not present in the basin. After the basin is dewatered, it could be decommissioning entirely.

This process would ensure that no CTS is directly impacted; however, they will be indirectly impacted given that the basin would no longer be available for future breeding.

This loss of aquatic habitat could be offset by creating aquatic breeding sites within the Gabilan and Natividad Creek corridors, both of which provide a direct linkage to the aestivation areas in the foothills north of Old Stage Road. It is anticipated that the restoration and creation of habitat along these creek corridors would serve as on-site compensatory mitigation for CTS habitat loss.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWs and CDFW. With implementation of the following measures, the CASP itself, and therefore the proposed tentative map, would avoid, minimize, and mitigation the impact on CTS to the extent feasible. However, the proposed map could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual. The proposed map 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 (see Mitigation Measures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-4, and 3.2-5 below).

There are numerous special-status birds that are documented within the region. The Specific Plan Area was assessed for habitat to support special-status 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.

Per the Final EIR, there are very few trees suitable for nesting within the Specific Plan Area. The majority of potential nesting trees are associated with the farm residence complexes located between Natividad Road and Gabilan Creek, or within Gabilan Creek corridor. There was no evidence of nesting in the on-site trees during any of the past field surveys. There are also powerlines located along Natividad Road, Old Stage Road, and a transmission line that bisects through the center of the Specific Plan Area in the farmland. There were no nests observed in the powerlines/poles. Construction activities in the Specific Plan Area would create temporary sources of noise and light that could affect nesting songbirds if they are located adjacent to the Specific Plan Area in the future. The ongoing activities associated with the operational phase (i.e., human and/or domesticated animal presence, light, noise, etc.) could disrupt nesting birds if they are located adjacent to the Specific Plan Area in the future. The following mitigation is intended to avoid and minimize impacts to special-status birds to the extent feasible.

The measure requires a preconstruction survey of the Specific Plan Area and immediate vicinity for all special-status birds protected by the federal and state ESA, MBTA and CFGC prior to construction. Such a survey would ensure that appropriate avoidance and minimization measures could be applied during the construction process to ensure that nesting birds were not adversely affected if determined to be present at that time. If nesting birds are found during the survey, a 300-foot buffer would be developed around active nests to ensure that the nesting birds are not disrupted during the breeding (February 1 - September 15). If construction stops for a period of 15 days or more during the avian breeding season than an additional bird survey shall be conducted.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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. With implementation of the following measures, the CASP itself, and therefore the proposed tentative map would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on bird 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. Implementation of the proposed project, with the following mitigation measure, would ensure that potential impacts to special status nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level (see Mitigation Measure 3.2-6 below).

Per the Final EIR, there are no documented special status fish species within the Specific Plan Area or vicinity; however, it is noted that the headwaters of Gabilan Creek hold trout. Trout, absent migration impediments, are anadromous fish species that are born in freshwater rivers and streams, and then some trout species, such as steelhead trout, migrate to the Pacific Ocean to grow and mature before returning to their place of origin to spawn. Trout that make the freshwater to saltwater migration are called Steelhead trout, which are present in the Salinas River and its tributaries. Anadromous fish resources once flourished naturally in the Salinas River system, but have significantly declined as a result of habitat destruction from agricultural practices, water diversion, flood control, mining, sedimentation, and bank degradation. Riparian vegetation is critical for the maintenance of high quality fish habitat. It provides cover, controls temperature, stabilizes stream banks, provides food, and buffers streams from erosion and impacts of adjacent land uses. Riparian vegetation also affects stream depth, current velocity, and substrate composition. The decline of riparian communities in California is a factor contributing to the loss of high-quality fish habitat.

Past steelhead studies along the Gabilan Creek suggests that the section through the Specific Plan Area is not currently conducive for anadromous fish spawning due to the sandy bed, lack of perennial water flows, and high suspended sediment during water flows. Additionally, due to the lack of flows and high-water temperatures, the section of Gabilan Creek through the Specific Plan Area is likely an obstruction to trout upstream that may otherwise use the corridor to migrate.

Ideal creek habitat in Gabilan Creek would include a dense riparian canopy, cobble bed, and continuous water flow. Restoration of a creek for anadromous fish is possible and one example in the region is the Marsh Creek located in Contra Costa County. This creek was a historical fishery for anadromous fish through the 1950s, but ceased to hold anadromous fish for over a half a century following water diversion, damming, and habitat degradation. A restoration effort in the early 2000s facilitated habitat enhancements that ultimately led to Chinook salmon and steelhead utilizing the Marsh Creek and its tributaries. The restoration of Gabilan Creek through the Specific Plan Area would be one step closer to restoring the Gabilan Creek as a Steelhead fishery.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

While the proposed tentative subdivision map is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on Steelhead given that they are not anticipated to be present within the Specific Plan Area, the restoration and habitat creation efforts on Gabilan and Natividad Creeks is anticipated to provide beneficial impacts for these creek corridors as fisheries.

It is important that the restoration design consider the habitat elements that are critical to fisheries, including that of the Steelhead. Such improvements include dense riparian canopy, cobble bed, pools and rifles, anchored logs in pools for cover/shade, and continuous water flow.

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 CASP itself, and therefore the proposed tentative map, 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. The restoration and habitat creation of the creek corridors, however, would provide beneficial impacts on special-status fish species.

There are numerous special-status mammals that are documented within the region.

None are documented in the Specific Plan Area or the general vicinity. The Specific Plan Area was assessed for habitat to support special-status mammals and based on field surveys and records searches, two warranted a more detailed evaluation within the CASP EIR due to the habitat conditions including Monterey dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes Luciana), and protected bats.

Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes luciana). The Monterey dusky- footed woodrat is a California Species of Special Concern that occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub habitats in Monterey County. Dusky-footed woodrats are found in riparian and oak woodland forests or thick chaparral habitat. Dusky-footed woodrats build large, complex nests of sticks and other woody debris. Nests are typically located near the bases of trees or shrubs, under snags, under dense brush, in the lowest branches of trees, and are often found within riparian areas. Dusky-footed woodrats favor dense canopy cover and areas with poison oak. The breeding season generally begins in February and continues through September, and females have a single brood per year. This species may occur at times within riparian vegetation found in the region, most notably along Gabilian Creek; however, appropriate habitat is not present within Natividad Creek or the balance of the Specific Plan Area.

Gabilan Creek traverses the Specific Plan Area from the north to south and exhibits about 30 feet of elevational drop from the upstream, north edge of the Specific Plan Area to the downstream, south edge at Boronda Road. The width of the Gabilan Creek corridor ranges approximately 30 feet wide in its most disturbed areas, to 180 feet wide CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

in its most undisturbed natural areas. Gabilan Creek has been degraded over time as a result of agricultural practices, but still has some intact riparian habitat. The Specific Plan will use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for Gabilan Creeks. The total riparian area created will be approximately 30 acres for Gabilan Creek. It is anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will require some temporary impact that which would require regulatory approval. It is also anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors, which will include habitat opportunities for the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat.

It is anticipated that there will be two crossings/bridges over Gabilan Creek. This includes the crossings/bridges associated with the Russell Road extension, as well as an internal roadway. The two crossings over Gabilan Creek are anticipated to impact no more than 0.5 acres combined. This calculation accounts for Gabilan Creek being approximately 100' and 130' wide in the area of the crossings and the roadway section being no wider than 100'. • The permanent impact of 0.5 acres for the roadway crossings over Gabilan Creek are anticipated to be fully mitigated through on-site compensatory mitigation through the restoration and habitat creation efforts that will amount to 30 acres. While the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat has not been observed within the Gabilan Creek, or anywhere within the Specific Plan Area, these restoration efforts will create enhanced habitat opportunities for this species to occupy the area in the future.

The following mitigation measure is presented to ensure appropriate measures are taken to avoid and minimize impacts to this species to the extent feasible.

Per the Final EIR, 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 big-eared 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 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. Mitigation Measure 3.2- 7 is presented to ensure appropriate measures are taken to avoid and minimize impacts to bats to the extent feasible.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Per the Final EIR, with implementation of the following measures, the CAST itself, and thus the proposed tentative subdivision map, would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on mammal 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. With implementation of the following measure, this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level (see Mitigation Measure 3.2-7 below) The records search identified numerous special-status 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 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 proposed 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. Implementation of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special-status plants.

The Specific Plan Area contain several hydrologic features, including natural (creeks) and man-made (irrigation ditches). The most notable hydrologic features include Gabilan and Natividad Creeks.

Gabilan Creek traverses the Specific Plan Area from the north to south and exhibits about 30 feet of elevational drop from the upstream, north edge of the Specific Plan Area to the downstream, south edge at Boronda Road. The width of the Gabilan Creek corridor ranges approximately 30 feet wide in its most disturbed areas, to 180 feet wide in its most undisturbed natural areas.

Natividad Creek has three tributaries within the Specific Plan Area and exhibits a higher degree of elevational variation, with about 75 feet of differentiation from the hillslope between the two tributary channels entering from the north (crossing the future extension of Russell Road) and northeast (crossing Old Stage Road) to Boronda Road.

Hillslopes on both sides of the creek range up to 30 to 40 feet higher in elevation than the channel bed, especially along the future extension of Constitution Boulevard, and near the downstream edge of the Specific Plan Area at Boronda Road. The width of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Natividad Creek corridor ranges approximately 20 feet wide in its most disturbed areas, to 120 feet wide in its most undisturbed areas.

Gabilan Creek has been degraded over time as a result of agricultural practices, but still has some intact riparian habitat. Natividad Creek has been largely converted from its natural state to an agricultural drainage ditch void of any vegetation. The Specific Plan proposes to use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for both Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The total riparian area created within the Specific Plan Area will be approximately 30 acres for Gabilan Creek and 74 acres for Natividad Creek. It is anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will require some fill activity which would require regulatory approval. It is also anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors.

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 USACE has regulatory responsibility for navigable waters as well as "all other 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 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.

It is anticipated that the four crossings/bridges over Natividad Creek and two over Gabilan Creek, would warrant regulatory approval by the USACE and RWQCB (Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act). This includes the crossings/bridges associated with the Russell Road extension, which crosses both creeks. These may qualify for a Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation projects); however, any permit authorizing a crossing will likely be combined with the permit authorizing restoration of the creek corridors. The exact design of the crossings is not yet developed, but the estimated impact area has been calculated for this analysis.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The four crossings over Natividad Creek are anticipated to impact no more than 0.05 acres each. This calculation accounts for Natividad Creek being approximately 20' wide in the area of the crossings and the roadway section being no wider than 100'. The total fill associated with the crossings/bridges over Natividad Creek is estimated to be 0.2 acres for the four crossings combined. The two crossings over Gabilan Creek are anticipated to impact no more than 0.5 acres combined. This calculation accounts for Gabilan Creek being approximately 100' and 130' wide in the area of the crossings and the roadway section being no wider than 100
The permanent impact of 0.7 acres for the roadway crossings are anticipated to be fully mitigated through on-site compensatory mitigation through the restoration and habitat creation efforts along these creek corridors. The on-site mitigation is anticipated to amount to 30 acres for Gabilan Creek and 74 acres for Natividad Creek. The final design of the creek corridor is not complete and will require a full restoration plan, including maintenance plan, in order for it to be accepted by the regulatory agencies as on-site mitigation. These plans would be prepared upon approval of the Specific Plan, and prior to any disturbance to the creek corridors.

Per the Final EIR, the CASP had the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on federal or state protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, however, will ensure that there is no fill, or hydrologic interruption, to a jurisdictional facility, without an appropriate authorization from the regulatory agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW). Additionally, the following mitigation measure would require a "no net loss" of wetland, which would require 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. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure

3.2-8, the impact of the CASP, and thus of the proposed tentative subdivision map would be less than significant (see Mitigation Measure 3.2-8 below) The Specific Plan Area is currently being farmed and contains limited development.

Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. The site has been heavily disturbed for years from agricultural practices. Two creeks cross through the Specific Plan Area: Gabilan Creek in the west and Natividad Creek in the east.

Gabilan Creek has been degraded over time as a result of agricultural practices, but still has some intact riparian habitat. Natividad Creek has been largely converted from its natural state to an agricultural drainage ditch void of any vegetation. As such, the existing habitat value of the creek corridors is limited. The Specific Plan proposes to use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for both Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The total riparian area created within the Specific Plan Area will be approximately 30 acres for Gabilan Creek and 74 acres for Natividad Creek. It is also anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

improvements to the habitat quality will create more likelihood that the corridor would be occupied by a variety of flora and fauna that is not currently present.

As noted previously, the restoration and habitat creation efforts on Gabilan and Natividad Creeks are anticipated to provide beneficial impacts for these creek corridors as fisheries. The restoration and habitat creation efforts will include improvements such as dense riparian canopy, cobble bed, pools and rifles, anchored logs in pools for cover/shade, and continuous water flow. Although the restoration area will be located adjacent to existing and future urban development, these biological improvements will further encourage a variety of flora and fauna that is not currently present, which could attract animal species and maximize the biological benefits of the creek corridors compared to the existing condition.

The CASP will cause a permanent impact to 0.7 acres of the existing creek corridor for roadway crossings/bridges; however, this permanent impact is anticipated to be fully mitigated through on-site compensatory mitigation through the restoration and habitat creation efforts along these creek corridors. The on-site mitigation is over the two creeks is anticipated to total 104 acres. The final design of the creek corridor is not complete and will require a full restoration plan, including maintenance plan, in order for it to be accepted by the regulatory agencies as on-site mitigation. These plans would be prepared upon approval of the Specific Plan, and prior to any disturbance to the creek corridors. With the restoration/creation of the 104 acres of creek corridor along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-7, the CASP itself, and thus the proposed tentative subdivision map, would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.

Concerning wildlife movement and migration, per the Final EIR, the Specific Plan Area is used predominantly for active agricultural production, which generally prohibits most overland wildlife movement due to the lack of suitable vegetative cover. The exception is the creek corridors and irrigation ditches. This network of irrigation ditches throughout the Specific Plan Area provides some aquatic linkage and potential movement corridors for special status species documented in the vicinity, including CTS, CRLF, WPT, and possibly Steelhead. The margins of the ditches provide some opportunities for refugia given that they are not disced/disturbed as frequently as the cultivated areas. There is potential refugia habitat in crevices, and/or debris.

While the restoration and habitat creation areas along two creek corridors would result in improved movement, aquatic, and refugia habitat compared to what exists presently, the balance of the Specific Plan Area will no longer serve as movement habitat with the construction of facilities and structures (i.e., residential subdivisions, roadways, etc.) which would impede movement of wildlife throughout the Specific Plan Area. After construction, all movement would be pinched off everywhere except at Gabilan and Natividad, where it would be significantly improved. For example, during the migration period, CTS is believed to move from the foothills located to the north and east of the Specific Plan Areas down through the agricultural areas and ultimately breed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

0.25-acre agricultural basin/pond located on the east side of Natividad Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of East Boronda Road. CTS breeding is documented in this basin/pond. Once the Specific Plan Area is developed, this basin/pond will be cut individuals that are estivating in the foothills to migrate to this breeding basin/pond during the breeding season. It is noted that upon development of the Specific Plan Area, there will be points of entry that CTS can use to reach the on-site creek corridors, and within those corridors there are mitigation specifications that require the creation of aquatic breeding sites at least equivalent in size to the breeding site that is lost.

Per the Final EIR, the CASP 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 CASP 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. This is a potentially significant impact. 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.

As noted previously, the restoration and habitat creation efforts on Gabilan and Natividad Creeks is anticipated to provide beneficial impacts for these creek corridors as fisheries. The restoration and habitat creation efforts would include improvements such as dense riparian canopy, cobble bed, pools and rifles, anchored logs in pools for cover/shade, and continuous water flow. Although the restoration area would be located adjacent to existing and future urban development, these biological improvements would further encourage a variety of flora and fauna that is not currently present, which could attract animal species and maximize the biological benefits of the creek corridors compared to the existing condition.

In an attempt to offset the impact to the extent feasible, the Specific Plan includes two significant restoration and habitat creation areas totaling 104 acres along two creek corridors. Functionally, these areas will provide quality habitat for CRLF, CTS, WPT, as well as Steelhead. Nevertheless, although Natividad and Gabilan Creeks will be restored and habitat will be created along these creek corridors, the balance of the Specific Plan Area will be permanently removed from movement habitat.

Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to the loss of movement habitat through the Specific Plan Area, combined with the loss of upland habitat.

The Specific Plan area is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, neither the CASP nor the proposed tentative subdivision map would conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

State law requires any decision by a city affecting land use and development to be consistent with its General Plan. This determination is ultimately made by the City Council. If an action, program or project is inconsistent with the General Plan, State law requires it be reconciled. This may involve modification to the action, program, or project, or amendment of the General Plan. Alternatively, a proposed project can be denied due to General Plan inconsistency. Therefore, this impact discussion will evaluate the proposed project's consistency with the Salinas General Plan as it related to biological resources. The evaluation will consider the proposed project's consistency with the adopted General Plan policies included within the Conservation/Open Space Element of the Salinas General Plan. This impact discussion also includes an evaluation of the project's consistency with the City of Salinas Municipal Code.

City of Salinas General Plan: The following discussion analyzes the project's consistency with the relevant goal and policies of the City's General Plan.

Policy COS-2.1: Participate in and implement local and regional programs that promote water conservation.

Impacts associated with water supply are analyzed in Section 3.11, Utilities, of the CASP EIR. As noted in Draft EIR Section 3.11, all new buildings and irrigated area systems in the Central Area Specific Plan are to comply with current City of Salinas Codes (including the City's Water Efficient Landscape ordinance), the City's General Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the California Plumbing and California Green Building Codes, which mandate installation of water conservation plumbing fixtures and fittings.

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-2.1.

Policy COS-1.6: Enforce national (NPDES) requirements and participate in regional efforts to protect and enhance water quality.

Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are analyzed in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the CASP EIR. As noted in Impact 3.6-1, in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 ensures compliance with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires the project applicant to submit detailed plans and calculations for water quality BMPs and water quality detention/retention basins design, consistent with the City's NPDES permit requirements. These are regulatory requirements that have been incorporated into the EIR as mitigation to ensure water quality is maintained.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-1.6.

Policy COS-5.1: Protect and enhance creek corridors, river corridors, the reclamation ditch, sloughs, wetlands, hillsides and other potentially significant biological resources for their value in providing visual amenity, flood protection, habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities.

The Specific Plan Area contain two creek corridors: Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. Both Creeks have been degraded over time as a result of agricultural practices. The Specific Plan requires the use of year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for both Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The total riparian area created within the Specific Plan Area will be approximately 30 acres for Gabilan Creek and 74 acres for Natividad Creek. It is also anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors. The improvements to the habitat quality will create more likelihood that the corridor would be occupied by a variety of flora and fauna that is not currently present.

Additionally, the creek corridors will provide a unique visual amenity, recreational opportunities, and flood protection.

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.

A mitigation measure has been incorporated into this project to ensure that no fill activities of any ditches occur without consultation and/or permitting from the USACE and RWQCB.

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-5.1.

Policy COS-5.2: Explore with Monterey County the potential for creation of a Gabilan Creek Regional Park extending along the creek from the urban edge to the headwaters in the Gabilan Mountains.

The proposed project includes the restoration of Gabilan Creek, including the creation of an expanded corridor for habitat, flood protection, passive recreation, and visual enhancement. The total acres of this corridor are anticipated to be 30 acres. As discussed below, the Gabilan Creek corridor would allow for picnicking, sitting, exercising or other activities along the banks of the creek. Gabilan Mountains are located further east of the Creek and is not directly affected by the proposed project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-5.2.

Policy COS-7.2: Maximize the use of built and natural features to develop a citywide network of parks and open spaces with Carr Lake, Gabilan Creek and the Sherwood Park/Rodeo Grounds complex as essential elements of the open space network.

Carr Lake, and the Sherwood Park/Rodeo Grounds complex are not located on the Specific Plan Area. Gabilan Creek traverses through the Specific Plan Area from north to south. The proposed project includes the restoration of Gabilan Creek, including the creation of an expanded corridor for habitat, flood protection, passive recreation, and visual enhancement. The total acres of this corridor are anticipated to be 30 acres and will specifically include recreational elements (i.e. trail network). In addition, Natividad Creek will have a similar restoration effort that will results in an expanded open space network throughout the Specific Plan Area. In addition to these natural features, the proposed project includes ample park and open space uses such that all residents will be within an approximately five-minute walking time of a park.

According to the Specific Plan, the natural drainage tributaries of Natividad Creek and Gabilan Creek would be preserved and enhanced as natural ecological and recreational elements in the project's diverse open space system. A walking/biking trail system with activity "nodes" for picnicking, sitting, exercising or other activities would traverse the banks of the creek corridors. As these areas are planned, consultation with qualified biotic and ecological experts would be necessary to ensure the proper balance between habitat creation/protection and recreation design.

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-7.2.

Policy COS-7.11: Develop and maintain an integrated system of open-space corridors and trails along utility easements, power-transmission-line rights-of-way, the reclamation ditch, stream banks, drainageways, slopes, and other natural features.

The proposed project includes development of an integrated system of open- space corridors and trails. The most notable is associated with two creek corridors: Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The Specific Plan proposes to use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for both Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. The total riparian area created within the Specific Plan Area will be approximately 30 acres for Gabilan Creek and 74 acres for Natividad Creek. The creek corridors will provide a unique visual amenity, recreational opportunities, as well as flood protection and habitat enhancement.

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-7.11.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Policy COS-7.12: Link activity centers, recreational opportunities, transit nodes and other services to the integrated trails network
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) currently provides transit access to the Specific Plan Area from existing bus stops located along Boronda Road. One of the primary project objectives is to create a community with a compact form that promotes sustainable neighborhood design and is pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly. The proposed project includes development of an integrated system of open-space corridors and paths in an area of the City which is currently served by MST. Additionally, as shown in Figure 2-6 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, various recreational opportunities would be provided by the onsite parks, which would also be linked by the proposed open space corridors along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks.

The proposed project is consistent with Policy COS-7.12.

Policy COS-21: Protection and Enhancement of Special Status Species. Require project developers to protect and enhance special status species habitat through setbacks and open space easements within new development and/or redevelopment areas. Protection and enhancement of special status species habitat shall require management of the habitat to ensure persistence of the species within the setback areas.

Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate season to ascertain whether the habitats within the proposed project area support special status species. If special status species are observed, avoidance measures shall be implemented.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a biological assessment of all habitat areas to assess the potential for the following special status species: Congdon's tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields, Pinnacles buckwheat, Alkali milk-vetch, Santa Cruz clover, Hutchinson's larkspur, Kellogg's horkelia, Burrowing owl, and /or California tiger salamander. If suitable habitat for any of these species is observed, then focused surveys during the appropriate season should be conducted. Such surveys would include winter and spring surveys for tiger salamander, protocol presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl, and spring/summer surveys for special status plant species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be consulted regarding the appropriate level of effort and protocol prior to conducting focused wildlife species surveys. If any of these species are found to inhabit the survey area, the City may require the preparation and implementation of a Habitat Management Plan to provide protection for the habitat. If impacts to occurrences are deemed unavoidable, the plan shall identify mitigation measures to compensate for impacts to the species. As part of the Habitat Management Plan, a 100-foot buffer shall be established around rare plant occurrences. The plan shall include measures to manage the rare plant occurrences for their protection and persistence at the site. The Habitat Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or USFWS prior to issuance of any permits by the City.

Prior to any proposed development within 150 feet of the stream corridors, protocol presence/absence surveys for California red-legged frog, southwestern pond turtle, and nesting birds should be conducted.

If these species are observed, the CDFG and the USFWS should be consulted regarding appropriate measures to avoid and mitigate potential impacts of the project on these species. The City shall not issue any permits prior to obtaining written approval from the CDFG and/or USFWS that the proposed mitigation plan has been approved.

Prior to any proposed development within or adjacent to oak woodland, a qualified biologist should conduct surveys to determine if protected wildlife species are nesting in the oak woodland, e.g., nesting raptors. If trees are to be removed, a qualified bat biologist should evaluate the trees as potential bat roost sites prior to removal, and recommend measures to avoid impacts to bats, such as exclusionary devices.

As noted above, various field surveys of the Specific Plan Area have been conducted, including March (26th and 31st) 2004, April (14th and 30th) 2004, May (17th) 2004, June (17th) 2004, July (26th) 2004, September (11th) 2015, and (April 18th) 2016.

These surveys were conducted during the appropriate season to ascertain whether the habitats within the Specific Plan Area support special status species. Additional surveys habitat areas to assess the potential for the following special status species (among other species): Congdon's tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields, Pinnacles buckwheat, Alkali milk-vetch, Santa Cruz clover, Hutchinson's larkspur, Kellogg's horkelia, Burrowing owl, and /or California tiger salamander. See Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 for the potential for each of these species to occur in the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan Area contains suitable habitat for several special-status species, as discussed throughout this section, including CTS, CRLF, and WPT.

CTS is documented in an agricultural basin located within the Specific Plan Area, as well as areas to the northeast and east of the Specific Plan Area. The basin within the Specific Plan Area is 0.25 acres in size located on the east side of Natividad Road.

There were 30 larvae observed on September 5, 2007. Twenty-two larval tail clippings collected for genetic testing indicated that the larvae are hybrids. This documented occurrence is a metapopulation of hybrid tiger salamanders.

The entire Specific Plan Area is within the 1.3 miles migration distance for 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, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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.

It is noted that this population has been genetically evaluated and has been determined to be a hybrid population and is not a distinct population segment (DPS). Mitigation measures are presented that require consultation with the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no illegal for any take, including habitat loss. The City is proposing mitigation that would require habitat restoration and/or creation along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks of ponded/basin areas that would include aquatic breeding habitat opportunities for CTS. The amount of basin/pond areas would be 0.25 acres at a minimum, which is equivalent to the size of the existing agricultural basin/pond that is a known CTS breeding site. This acreage, in the City's view, is sufficient to compensate for the loss of CTS habitat from the proposed project. Ultimately, however, the amount of compensatory mitigation will be determined by the USFWS and/or CDFW.

The final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact on CTS to the extent feasible. However, the proposed project could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual.

The proposed 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.

There are also numerous documented occurrences of 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 proposed 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. Given that the creation/restoration of habitat along these creek corridors is an expansion of habitat beyond what exists presently, it is anticipated that there would be a net increase in CRLF habitat. This includes breeding habitat. 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 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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. With implementation mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact on CRLF. However, the proposed project could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual. The proposed project will also indirectly affect this species through habitat modifications or reductions, which will eliminate habitat, which may reduce the number of, or restrict the range this special status species.

The proposed project is consistent with City Council Policy COS-21.

City of Salinas Municipal Code: Chapter 35, Trees and Shrubs, of the Salinas Municipal Code protects heritage and/or landmark trees through permit requirements.

Section 35-9 outlines the permit requirements for trimming, pruning, planting, removing, or otherwise interfering with any tree, shrub, or plant upon any street, parkway, or alley in the City. Section 35-18 prohibits the removal of heritage or landmark oak trees from City property except with the prior written approval by the Director.

There are trees located in the Specific Plan Area, the majority of which are located along Gabilan Creek. There are also a variety of landscaping trees associated with the three farmland residence complexes that are located between Natividad Road and the Gabilan Creek. It is anticipated that the trees associated with Gabilan Creek will be maintained, a significant planting of new trees in the corridor will occur during the restoration and habitat creation effort. Additionally, new trees will be planted in the Natividad Creek corridor associated with the restoration and habitat creation effort in that location.

It is anticipated that the trees associated with the farmland residence complexes will be removed as that area is developed. Additionally, it is anticipated that the restoration of Gabilan Creek could require the removal of dead and/or diseased trees that warrant removal. Additionally, it is anticipated that some trees will within the Gabilan Creek area will require removal associated with the two crossings/bridges. The exact number of trees to be removed cannot be calculated at this stage given that detailed designs are not yet prepared. This information will be available at the improvement plan stage of the project. It is noted that any removal of trees would be required to comply with the provisions of the Salinas Municipal Code, including Chapter 35. This is an existing standard and regulation that is enforced by the City of Salinas during the improvement/grading plan and/or building plan phase of a project.

CONCLUSION
The proposed tentative subdivision map 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 proposed project is generally consistent with the above relevant open space CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

and conservation policies of the General Plan, as well as the City's Municipal Code.

Overall, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Impact 3.2-12: Cumulative loss of biological resources including habitats and special status species (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)
Per the Final EIR, the Specific Plan Area is located in the Central Coast Bioregion, which has a wide variety of habitats and vegetation, including coastal prairie scrub, chaparral, mixed hardwoods, oak woodlands, and redwood forests, among many other habitats. The climate in this Bioregion does not vary much with the seasons. The northern portion, and more coastal areas, experience relatively cool, often foggy summers, mild falls, and chilly, rainy winters. The southern and inland portions of this Bioregion have hot, dry summers and warm autumns that are followed by mild, wet winters. Snowfall is rare. The Central Coast Bioregion is the appropriate cumulative context because environmental impacts related to biological resources are best addressed in the context of geographic areas defined by natural features rather than by political or administrative boundaries.

The Specific Plan Area is within an area planned for growth in the City's General Plan.

As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the City of Salinas began the process of amending its Sphere of Influence to include the Future Growth Areas (FGAs), which are located generally to the north and east of the City. The portion of the FGA which is located generally north of Boronda Road, west of Williams Road, east of San Juan Grade Road and south of Rogge Road and the future extension of Russell Road is referred to as the North of Boronda FGA. The Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission has annexed this FGA into the City. For planning purposes, the North of Boronda FGA was divided by the City into three separate proposed Specific Plan Areas - the West Area, the Central Area and East Area. The Central Area Specific Plan is within the City's FGA, and is located adjacent east of the existing West Area Specific Plan and adjacent west of the future East Area Specific Plan. The West Area Specific Plan was approved in December of 2019. The CASP was approved in November 2020.

CTS is documented in an agricultural basin located within the Specific Plan Area, as well as areas to the northeast and east of the Specific Plan Area. The basin within the Specific Plan Area is 0.25 acres in size located on the east side of Natividad Road.

There were 30 larvae observed on September 5, 2007. Twenty-two larval tail clippings collected for genetic testing indicated that the larvae are hybrids. This documented occurrence is a metapopulation of hybrid tiger salamanders.

The entire Specific Plan Area is within the 1.3 miles migration distance for 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, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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.

It is noted that this population has been genetically evaluated and has been determined to be a hybrid population and is not a distinct population segment (DPS). Mitigation measures are presented that require consultation with the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no illegal take for CTS. The regulatory agencies may also require compensatory mitigation for any take including habitat loss.

Per the Final EIR, the final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact on CTS to the extent feasible. However, the proposed tentative subdivision map, like the CASP itself, could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual. The proposed 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 mitigation measures, this impact was determined in the CASP EIR to be significant and unavoidable.

There are also numerous documented occurrences of CRLF within the Natividad Creek corridor, which is within the Specific Plan Area. CRLF is documented within the Natividad Creek corridor in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area in 2004. This occurrence type was a natural/native occurrence with an occurrence rank of "fair".

Gabilan Creek corridor also provides habitat for CRLF, although none have been observed in this area. The proposed 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 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.

As noted previously, the restoration and habitat creation efforts on Gabilan and Natividad Creeks is anticipated to provide beneficial impacts for these creek corridors as fisheries. The restoration and habitat creation efforts would include improvements such as dense riparian canopy, cobble bed, pools and rifles, anchored logs in pools for cover/shade, and continuous water flow. Although the restoration area would be located CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

adjacent to existing and future urban development, these biological improvements would further encourage a variety of flora and fauna that is not currently present, which could attract animal species and maximize the biological benefits of the creek corridors compared to the existing condition. The final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. With implementation mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact on CRLF to the extent feasible. However, the proposed project could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual. The proposed project will also indirectly affect this species through habitat modifications or reductions, which will eliminate habitat, which may reduce the number of, or restrict the range this special status species. Regardless of the mitigation measures, this impact was determined in the CASP EIR to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation measures were developed to ensure that any fill activities are authorized by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to disturbance, and that there be a no net loss of wetlands (1:1 minimum replacement ratio). The permit process ensures that minimization and compensation is incorporated into the activity. It was found in the Final EIR that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the project would not have wetlands and
substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly, on protected jurisdictional waters.

The project would result in impacts to biological resources including habitats and special status species. Development of the proposed 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 proposed 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. The same is true for the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
The following Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources stated in the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dated November 2020 shall be required for any future development in the project area:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (T 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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

The regulatory approvals are 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 similar characteristics as the known 0.25-acre breeding pond including depths of at permit process. Additionally, the replacement aquatic habitat shall be designed with 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 drift fencing around the work areas if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) I sensing installain of it traps to capture to miradio tha 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.

California Red-legged Frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii): The federally-listed Threatened and California Species of Special Concern CRLF occurs in lowlands and foothills primarily in perennial or ephemeral ponds, pools, and streams where water remains long enough (14 to 28 weeks) for breeding and metamorphosis of tadpoles. Specific breeding sites include streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, deep pools, backwater areas, dune ponds, lagoons, and estuaries. Habitats with the highest densities of CRLF often contain dense emergent or shoreline riparian vegetation closely associated with fairly shallow (< 0.5 meter) to deep (> 0.5 meter), still or slow-moving water (USFWS 2002). CRLF may disperse from their aquatic breeding habitats to upland habitats during the dry season. They prefer upland habitats that provide moisture to prevent desiccation and protection from predators including downed logs, woody vegetation, boulders, moist leaf litter, or other refugia during the dry season.

When there is sufficient water at their breeding location, they may remain in aquatic habitats year-round instead of moving to adjacent uplands. During wet seasons, frogs can move long distances between habitats, traversing upland areas or ephemeral drainages. Dispersal distances are typically less than 0.5 km (0.3 mile), with a few individuals moving 2.0 to 3.6 kilometers (1.2 to 2.2 miles). Seeps and springs in open grasslands can function as foraging habitat or refugia for wandering frogs (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW pursuant to Fish and Wildlife 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.

This species was detected along the Natividad Creek corridor within the Specific Plan Area, as well as along Old Stage Road and the East Area Specific Plan located to the east of the Specific Plan Area. There are also numerous documented occurrences of CRLF, including breeding sites within five miles of the Specific Plan Area. CRLF may disperse through any of the drainages in the vicinity, including Gabilan and Natividad Creeks. While the Specific Plan Area does not provide high quality habitat for CRLF outside of the creek corridors, the network of irrigation ditches presents some habitat opportunities for this species.

Natividad Creek has three tributaries within the Specific Plan Area and exhibits a higher degree of elevational variation, with about 75 feet of differentiation from the hillslope between the two tributary channels entering from the north (crossing the future extension of Russell Road) and northeast (crossing Old Stage Road) to Boronda Road.

Hillslopes on both sides of the creek range up to 30 to 40 feet higher in elevation than the channel bed, especially along the future extension of Constitution Boulevard, and near the downstream edge of the Specific Plan Area at Boronda Road. The width of the Natividad Creek corridor ranges approximately 20 feet wide in its most disturbed areas, to 120 feet wide in its most undisturbed areas.

There are four crossings/bridges over Natividad Creek and two over Gabilan Creek. The four crossings over Natividad Creek are anticipated to impact no more than 0.05 acres each. This calculation accounts for Natividad Creek being approximately 20' wide in the area of the crossings and the roadway section being no wider than 100'. The total fill associated with the crossings/bridges over Natividad Creek is estimated to be 0.2 acres for the four crossings combined.

Natividad Creek has been largely converted from its natural state to an agricultural drainage ditch void of any vegetation. The Specific Plan proposes to use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for Natividad Creek.

Approximately 74 acres of riparian habitat would be created along Natividad Creek. It is anticipated that the restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will require regulatory approval, which would involve the temporary impact to Natividad Creek during the restoration and habitat creation process. The temporary impact to the creek corridor 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 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.

Gabilan Creek traverses the Specific Plan Area from the north to south and exhibits about 30 feet of elevational drop from the upstream, north edge of the Specific Plan CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Area to the downstream, south edge at Boronda Road. The width of the Gabilan Creek corridor ranges approximately 30 feet wide in its most disturbed areas, to 180 feet wide in its most undisturbed natural areas.

Gabilan Creek has been degraded over time as a result of agricultural practices, but still has some intact riparian habitat. Similar to the efforts along Natividad Creek, the Specific Plan proposes to use year-round runoff, vegetation and detention areas to create a riparian corridor for Gabilan Creek. Approximately 30 acres of riparian habitat would be created 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 Gabilan Creek during the restoration and habitat creation process. The temporary impact to the creek corridor would have the potential to impact CRLF if present during the construction period. It is noted that CRLF has not been observed in Gabilan Creek; however, the habitat is conducive to this species. As such, CRLF could be impacted during the construction of the crossings/bridges over the creek corridor. Restoration and alteration of these creek corridors will ultimately result in improved habitat quality of these creek corridors, which would be a benefit to the CRLF population in the region.

CONCLUSION
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 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 proposed 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 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 following mitigation measures are presented that require consultation with the regulatory agencies to ensure that there is no illegal take for CRLF. Additionally, the regulatory agencies have established avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that they impose on projects through the regulatory permitting process. These measures would require activities to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF. 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 any monitoring, 3) erecting drift fencing CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

around the work areas, 4) inspection of drift fencing by biologist with a scientific collecting permit every 72 hours, 5) relocation of any CRLF found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per protocol; and 6) post construction report. The regulatory agencies may also require compensatory mitigation for any take, including habitat loss. The determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.

The final determination of compensatory mitigation, including the appropriate ratio, is determined through the regulatory permit process in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. With implementation of the following measures, the proposed project would avoid, minimize, and mitigation the impact on CRLF to the extent feasible. However, the proposed project could result in a direct impact through incidental take of an individual.

The proposed project will also indirectly affect this species through habitat modifications or reductions, which will eliminate habitat, 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.

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 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 CDFW.

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 CFC. 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Grading and/or building permits and plans issued for development in the project area shall note the following:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

• 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, 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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.

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 Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significan
lew impar Substantially
Mitigated by
Signs than Uniformly
Applied
with Impact Fully Developmen
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies ot
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section §15064.5
(b) Cause a substantial •
adverse change in the •
significance of a unique
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
§15064.5?
(c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the proposed tentative subdivision map's effects on cultural resources, in part due to the mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to such resources. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the cultural resource impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Responses a.), b,), and c.) No historical resources were found during field surveys for the CASP. 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

(NWIC). There have been four 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.

Most fossils within Monterey County consist of micro-organisms such as foraminifera or diatoms, or assemblages of mollusks and barnacles most commonly found in sedimentary rocks ranging from Cretaceous age (138 to 96 million years old) to Pleistocene age (1.6 million to 11 thousand years old). Fossils are found throughout the Monterey County because of the widespread distribution of marine deposits. No significant fossil records have been discovered within the Specific Plan Area. However, the City of Salinas General Plan EIR (2002) identifies that important archaeological resources have the potential to occur within the General Plan planning area, including within portions of the undeveloped North of Boronda FGA (including the present CASP area). These areas are the Carr Lake/Natividad Creek corridor and a wide band on either side of Highway 101 in the northwest portion of the General Plan planning area.

Per the CASP Final EIR, letters were sent to: the Native American Heritage Commission; Mr. Tom Little Bear Nason, Esslen Tribe of Monterey County; Tony Cerda, Chairperson, Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe; Ms. Louise Miranda-Ramirez, Chairperson, Ohlone Coastanoan-Esselen Nation; Mr. Valentine Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band; Ms. Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; and, Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan. The Native American Heritage Commission responded with a letter dated April 3, 2017. Ms. Louise Miranda-Ramirez, Chairperson, Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation responded by letter on April 22, 2017 stating that the project area is within "the indigenous homeland of our people." The letter further states that the Ohlone/Coastanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN) objects to all excavation at known cultural sites. OCEN also requests to be provided with archaeological reports and to be involved with any archaeological projects within their area, including site monitoring. OCEN specifically requests to be consulted on all projects "affecting our tribal homelands" including, but not limited to, ground disturbance. Chairperson Miranda-Ramirez concludes her April 22, 2017 letter by requesting a meeting with the City of Salinas to begin the consultation process. The tribal consultation records, along with the comment letter received, is included in Appendix A of the Final EIR.

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
a previously unknown historical resource. Project implementation may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. The implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level (see Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 below).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The Natividad and Gabilan Creek corridors run through portions of the Plan Area.

Waterways in the region (including creeks) have historically been areas of settlement for Native Americans; therefore, there exists the potential for undiscovered archeological resources to be identified during the development of the Plan Area. However, development of the Specific Plan Area would improve and restore the Natividad and Gabilan Creek corridors. The immediate area surrounding the waterways within the Plan Area (including these creeks) would be minimally developed, with Open Space (OS) and Park (P) land uses proposed along these corridors. A carefully planned park, open space, drainage, and supplemental detention and retention system would be implemented along these corridors.

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 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. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

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 considered potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to unknown or otherwise undiscovered paleontological resources to a less than significant level (see Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 below).

No human remains or known burial sites were found during field surveys for the proposed 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 three-quarters of the Specific Plan Area and no CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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. The implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level (see Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 below).

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 proposed project would not generate a significant adverse impact to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, or cause a significant disturbance to any human remains. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This is a less than significant impact.

The Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to cultural resources (Mitigation Measures CR1, CR2, and CR3). These mitigation measures were found to reduce the potentially significant impact to paleontological resources to a less than significant level in the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR. Additionally, it was found that these mitigation measures may not reduce the potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources under some circumstances where they would not apply to the approval (i.e. ministerial projects/non-discretionary). It is noted that the General Plan, as a broad citywide legislative approval, did not require a parcel-level cultural resource analysis. A detailed site-specific analysis was prepared for the CASP EIR, however; and it did not find any physical or recorded evidence that there are any cultural resources within the Specific Plan Area.

While there are extensive documented cultural resources in Salinas and unincorporated Monterey County, there are no cultural resources that were found during field surveys for the CASP EIR. Additionally, there are no cultural resources 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 three-quarters of the Specific Plan Area and no cultural resources were CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

documented. The Monterey County Historic Property Data File Directory and National Register of Historic Resources do not list any cultural resources in the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, mitigation measures developed in connection with the CASP EIR require the proposed project to evaluate any cultural resources discovered during construction activities. Any significant discoveries during construction would be required to be preserved in place or mitigated through relocation or documentation; and the project is not anticipated to considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources.

Absent any evidence of a cultural resource in the Specific Plan Area, the potential for an impact is considered relatively low. Mitigation measures would require practices that would alleviate any impact associated with a cultural find during construction activities that was previously unknown. It is noted that there has been no record of a cultural resource being uncovered during the regular ground disturbance associated with the agricultural activities over many decades (i.e., tilling/deep ripping). Given this fact, the probability of uncovering a cultural resource during construction is considered relatively low.

However, the cumulative setting is regional in scope and includes extensive cultural sites. Although the Specific Plan Area has been evaluated and has not been found to contain any evidence of cultural resources implementation of the proposed project, when taken together with all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Monterey County), has the potential to cause a significant cumulative impact. Even so, the incremental contribution of the proposed project to this larger significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impacts on cultural resources.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
The following Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources included in the adopted Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dated November 2020 shall be required for any future development in the project area:

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, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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.

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.

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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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;
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.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
Impact
New Less
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Uniformly
Significant Applied
Issue Mitigation Impact Fully
No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
(a) Result in potentially •
• •
significant environmental
mpact due to wasteful
nefficient, or unnecessary
resources, during project
construction or operation?
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a
• • •
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the proposed tentative subdivision map's energy-related impacts. The tentative map would CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the energy-related impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Responses a.) and b.) The proposed 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 proposed project, and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on statewide and local measures.

Businesses and residences living within the area covered by the proposed project will have to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E is expected to achieve at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources by 2020, and 60% by 2030. Moreover, energy delivered by Community Choice Energy Providers such as Monterey Bay Community would provide carbon-free energy. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards ("part 6"), would be applicable to the proposed project. These regulations would require the buildings constructed under the proposed project to achieve a high level of energy efficiency. For example, part 6 of the latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards would require improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting, as compared with the previous version of these standards.

Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

Furthermore, as described previously, the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-14 (as provided by Section 3.1 Air Quality) would reduce project energy usage (including from electricity, natural gas, and on-road vehicle gasoline and diesel sources). Overall, the incorporation of mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would avoid and reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed 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. For these reasons, the proposed project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

significant impact on any of the threshold as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
No mitigation is required. The General Mitigation Measures discussed above imposed duties on the City of Salinas, and not on individual property owners within the CASP.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact
Less than
Applied
Issue Impact Fully
No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR

7. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the
project:
(a) Directly or indirectly cause •
X •
ane rise effects, including
the thin of logs, injury.
(Ruptuquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
(i) Strong seismic ground
shakina? • D X
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Applied
significant Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
(iii) Seismic-related ground L
failure, including
liquefaction?
X
(iv) Landslides?
(b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
(d) Be located on expansive •
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
(e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
disposal of
wastewater?
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy •
a unique paleontological
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact
Impact Fully
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Discussion
Responses a-i), а-ii), a-iii), c): As the CASP Draft EIR explained on Page 1.0-17, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) 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) indicate that there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City of Salinas. The analysis cites a high risk of seismic activity and other geologic hazards associated with earthquakes in Salinas due to the region being seismically active; however, the analysis also indicates that there are no active faults within the Salinas Planning Area.

Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. According to the Web Soils Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2017), the soils in the Specific Plan Area have a high sand content in the soils. Given the high sandy soils, combined with the region being seismically active, the potential for liquefaction is present within the Specific Plan Area.

To minimize and mitigate the risks associated with seismicity, Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) presented the following six mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure GS1 requires the City to assess development proposals for potential hazards pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring mitigation measures to mitigate all identified public safety hazards; Mitigation Measure GS2 requires the City to use open space easements, buffers, and other techniques when necessary to avoid public safety hazards; Mitigation Measure GS3 requires the City to implement the most recent geologic, seismic, and structural guidelines; Mitigation Measure GS4 requires the City during the review of development proposals involving grading, unstable soils, and other hazardous CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

conditions, to require surveys of soils and geologic conditions be performed by a state engineering geologist or civil engineer, where appropriate. Based on the results of the survey, design measures will be incorporated into projects to minimize geologic hazards; Mitigation Measure GS5 requires the City to implement the City's Multi-hazard Emergency Plan; and Mitigation Measure GS6 requires the City to coordinate with local agencies and organizations to provide emergency preparedness education and educational materials to its residents and businesses.

The City of Salinas requires a final geotechnical evaluation to be performed at a design level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils and anticipated seismic activity. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that the combination of seismicity and soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures. In addition, all new construction in the City of Salinas is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code, which contains criteria include inspections during construction to ensure that design standards are met. 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) found that the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs, in combination with the Alquist-Priolo Act, California Building Standards Code, and City of Salinas requirements, would reduce potential impacts associated with surface fault rupture, seismic shaking, and seismic ground failure, to a less than significant level.

Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes all development under the CASP, would be required to comply with the above referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the CASP and tentative subdivision maps in furtherance thereof 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 EIR for the Salinas Central Area Special Plans utilized 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) pursuant to the tiering requirements of CEQA. As per the EIR, implementation of the CASP and related tentative subdivision maps would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). Additionally, the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that impacts related to Geology and Soils associated with the GAs, which includes the Specific Plan, would not be different from those discussed in the Final Environmental CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002). This topic does not warrant additional analysis and will not be addressed further in the EIR.

Responses • a-iv): The overall topographic relief of the Specific Plan Area is approximately 76 feet, with a maximum elevation of approximately 146 feet above sea level at the northeast corner on Old Stage Road, and a minimum elevation of approximately 70 feet above sea level in Natividad Creek at the Boronda Road crossing. Two creeks cross through the Specific Plan Area: Gabilan Creek to the west and Natividad Creek to the east. The greatest elevation changes within the Specific Plan Area occur along these creeks. However, the Specific Plan Area would have no slopes located outside of the planned Open Space and/or Park land uses that could be subject to significant landslide. Therefore, the potential for landslides to cause substantial adverse effects to people or structure in the Specific Plan Area is highly unlikely. As stated above, as per the Final EIR, implementation of the CASP and subsequent approvals implementing the CASP would not result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). Additionally, the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that impacts related to Geology and Soils 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).

This topic does not warrant additional analysis and will not be addressed further in the EIR.

Response b): The Specific Plan Area has a relatively low risk of landslides (a form of erosion). However, slopes adjacent to the Gabilan Creek and Natividad Creek are higher, and could undergo erosion under certain conditions. Additionally, all new development would require some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of a substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requires a project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for each project that disturbs an area one acre or larger. The SWPPPs include project specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Further, new construction in the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements, the City's Storm Water Development Standards (SWDS), and City Public Works Standards, all of which are intended to reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level.

To minimize the impacts on soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, the Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

development within the General Plan would potentially result in substantial soil and topsoil erosion from wind or water. The Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) provided mitigation for this impact that includes complying with MBARD guidelines to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 emissions. The Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) also identified that mitigation for this impact could also include performing geotechnical evaluations specific to the design of facilities to ensure that buildings and infrastructure is built safely. Site specific geotechnical evaluations will provide site specific design measures such as the soil compaction requirements, foundation designs, engineering fill requirements, and more specific design measures for each individual facility that is constructed
Any future development under the CASP would be required to comply with the above referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the CASP and associated tentative subdivision maps 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). As stated above, as per the result in any new significant adverse impacts beyond those addressed in the Final Final EIR, implementation of the CASP and associated project approvals would not Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007). Additionally, the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) indicated that impacts related to Geology and Soils associated with the GAs, 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). This topic does not warrant additional analysis and will not be addressed further in the EIR.

Response d): Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates; swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement and distorting structural elements. Expansion is a typical characteristic of certain varieties of clay-type soils. Expansive soils shrink and swell in volume during changes in moisture content, such as a result of seasonal rain events, and can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs, roadway improvements, and pavement sections. The Final Supplemental for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW/AECOM 2007) identified that mitigation for this impact could include performing site-specific geotechnical evaluations to determine whether expansive soils would be a hazard.

The City of Salinas requires a final geotechnical evaluation to be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils.

The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures. Any CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

future development under the approved General Plan, which includes all development under and within the CASP, would be required to comply with the above referenced regulations, policies, and standards. Implementation of the CASP and associated tentative subdivision maps 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).

Responses e): The proposed project would not result in the construction or installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Instead, the proposed project would be served by wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment, disposal, and recycling services through the City of Salinas and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). The sewer system for the CASP would consist of 8-inch to 12-inch pipes, designed in accordance with the City of Salinas design standards at the time of final design. The sewer mains will be located in public streets and private alleys with public service easements. The sewer mains will connect to the existing City of Salinas sewer system at two locations: the 10-inch sewer in Independence Boulevard, and the 18-inch sewer near Constitution Boulevard.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
No mitigation is required. The General Mitigation Measures discussed above imposed duties on the City of Salinas, and not on individual property owners within the CASP.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant Applied
Issue with Impact Fully Development
Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

8. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas • •
emissions, either directly •
or indirectly, that may have
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant
with Impact Fully
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR
a significant impact on the
environment?
• •
(b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the proposed tentative subdivision map's effects resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in part due to the comprehensive character of the mitigation required to reduce such emissions. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the GHG- related impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map.

Responses (a) and (b): Section 31-903.16 of the Municipal Code (Energy Conservation) requires that the design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future pass or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision
The CASP EIR explained that, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do any of the following:

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).

The MBARD had previously recommended using the adopted San Luis Obispo (SLO) County APCD quantitative emissions bright-line threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e per year, or the SLO County APCD per capita emissions threshold of 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/year for year 2020 for most land use projects. However, independently calculated per capita emissions thresholds were derived, in conformance with the Newhall Ranch decision (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204), based on the GHG emissions included for land use-based sectors within California's 1990 GHG Inventory and future-year population and employment projections. These independently calculated per capita emissions thresholds (for Years 2040 and 2050) were utilized for the evaluation of operation-related emissions from the CASP.

Therefore, in compliance with the Newhall Ranch decision, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be cumulatively considerable if the project would produce more than 1,150 MT CO2e per year in construction-related emissions, or 1.44 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2040, or 0.80 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2050, in operation-related emissions. In addition, a project that contributes to a net decrease in GHG emissions and is consistent with the reduction goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 is presumed to have a less than significant GHG impact.

Based on the discussion above, the following thresholds were applied to the analysis in the CASP EIR:
• For the evaluation of construction-related emissions, the SLO County APCD recommended mass emission threshold of 1,150 metric tons of CO2e per year is used.
• For the evaluation of operation-related emissions, for year 2040, the independently derived per capita emissions threshold of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year is used
• For the evaluation of operation-related emissions, for year 2050, the independently derived per capita emissions threshold of 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year is used.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Consistent with Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines, energy-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do the following:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation;
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency;
In order to determine whether or not the CASP would result in a significant impact on energy use, the Final EIR included an analysis of CASP energy use (also see the Energy Section of the Final EIR).

Estimated unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the Specific Plan were summarized in Table 3.4-1 of the Final EIR. These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on input from the project applicants, the CASP was assumed to commence construction in 2020 and occur through 2040, and full buildout of the Plan Area would be completed by 2040. It should be noted that this schedule was an approximation and was characterized as being subject to change over time. Buildout of the Specific Plan Area would occur based on market conditions, and therefore the pace of construction is expected to vary over time. Nevertheless, a regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity. It should also be noted that the results provided in Draft EIR Table 3.4-1 incorporates the CalEEMod default assumptions for off-road construction equipment, which tend to represent an overestimate of project off-road construction equipment needs. Emission results in Table 3.4-1 therefore represent a conservative estimate of project construction-related GHG emissions.

As presented in the table, short-term CASP construction emissions of GHGs would be a low of approximately 620 in 2020 and a high of approximately 12,149 MT CO2e in 2022, emitted during the construction period (2020 through 2040). Construction GHG emissions tend to be highest during years when building. construction activities would occur, as opposed to site preparation or other construction activities. As shown in Table

3.4-1, the CASP's construction emissions would exceed the mass emissions threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e/year for nearly all years of construction.

Per the Final EIR, the long-term operational GHG emissions estimate for the Specific Plan incorporates potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation.

Estimated GHG emissions associated with the Specific Plan in 2040 are summarized in Table 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 of the Final EIR. As shown in those tables, the annual 2040 GHG emissions associated with the Specific Plan would be approximately 45,347.1 MT CO2e CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

without any mitigation incorporated and 40,134.3 MT CO2e with mitigation incorporated into the CASP (as provided by CalEEMod). These mitigation measures therefore represent a decrease of 5,212.8 MT CO2e in year 2040.

Estimated GHG emissions associated with the Specific Plan in 2050 were summarized in Table 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 of the Final EIR. It should be noted that the same Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as estimated for year 2040 was estimated for year 2050.

Additionally, CalEEMod is highly limited to the extent that it can account for year 2050 reductions in GHG emissions, given the long timeframe involved. Given emerging technologies (such as affordable electric vehicles) and the high likelihood of increased federal and/or State regulation between 2040 and 2050, per capita emissions are likely to decrease further over this timeframe. Therefore, the year 2050 emissions results represent a conservative estimate. As shown in the following tables, the annual 2050 GHG emissions associated with the Specific Plan would be approximately 44,744.0 MT coze without any mitigation incorporated and 39,729.0 MT CO2e with mitigation incorporated into the CASP (as provided by CalEEMod). These mitigation measures therefore represent a decrease of 5,014.6 MT CO2e in year 2050.

The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32 and SB 32, and the City of Salinas, as lead agency, has chosen to utilize a threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on the guidance from the MBARD and the City of Salinas, and as required by the Newhall Ranch decision. This threshold was independently derived by De Novo Planning Group for the CASP EIR, based on statewide GHG emissions and future-year employment and population projections. The rationale for using this threshold is outlined in the subsection of the Final EIR for Greenhouse Gases, entitled "Thresholds of Significance" As provided by the Central Area Specific Plan, development under the CASP is anticipated to support approximately 14,353 persons at project buildout. The CASP would also have approximately 734 employees at project buildout (based on up to 489,700 square feet of mixed use commercial at project buildout3, and an employment density factor of 667 square feet per worker4). Therefore, with a total projected service population of 15,087, unmitigated operational GHG emissions of 45,347.1 MT CO2e (in Year 2040), and mitigated operational GHG emissions of 40,134.3 MT CO2e (in Year 2040), the CASP would generate approximately 3.01 MT CO2e/service population/year (in Year 2040), for operational emissions, under the unmitigated scenario. Under the mitigated scenario, the CASP would generate approximately 2.66 MT CO2e/service population/year (in Year 2040). These values are above the derived threshold of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year for Year 2040.

For the purposes of the analysis of the CASP as a whole, the service population in Year 2050 is assumed to be same as in Year 2040. Under such a scenario, unmitigated GHG emissions per service population in Year 2050 would be approximately 2.97 MT CO2e/service population/year, and mitigated GHG emissions would be 2.63 MT CO2e/service population/year. However, the service population threshold applied for CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Year 2050 is lower than in Year 2040, at 0.80 MT COe/service population/year (and therefore more difficult at to achieve as compared to Year 2040). The GHG emissions modelled for Year 2050 would exceed this threshold by a substantial margin.

As described above, it is expected that the CASP's GHG efficiency in the Year 2050 would be improved beyond that of Year 2040, given the high likelihood of technological progress of the next approximately thirty years, which would provide opportunities for additional reductions in per capita GHG emissions. One example of this is the likelihood of substantially increased electrification of vehicles from 2040 to 2050. Additionally, regulatory trends, such as increases in State renewable energy procurement requirements (i.e. the State RPS) may reduce per capita emissions from the use of electricity even further from 2040 to 2050, which would have a large effect on overall per capita GHG emissions of projects in California. Overall, full implementation of the California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan by Year 2050 would greatly reduce GHG emissions in California. While it is unknown at this time what kind of technological innovations and/or additional regulatory standards would reduce GHG emissions from 2040 to 2050, and by what amount, it is expected that the per capita GHG efficiency of the CASP in 2050 would be substantially lower than that as modelled by CalEEMod.

Per the Final EIR, 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. Additionally, the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 3.1: Air Quality in the Final EIR it would reduce the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the Specific Plan.

The mitigation measures presented in Section 3.1: Air Quality require traffic calming measures, preferential carpool/vanpool parking spaces, and other actions meant to reduce vehicle miles travelled. The mitigation measure provided in Section 3.1: Air Quality require the consideration and implementation of feasible alternative energy infrastructure within the Plan Area. The mitigation measures presented in Section 3.1:

Air Quality also ensure that the project proponent would consider and implement feasible strategies to encourage alternative energy use (e.g. solar PV) within the Plan Area. Consistent with the CASP and associated mitigation requirements, the proposed project would be required to use water efficient fixtures in all buildings, utilize water- efficient irrigation systems, as well as coordinate with the MBARD to consider the implementation of bicycle rental opportunities within the Plan Area.

Nevertheless, even after incorporation of the mitigation measures provided in Section

3.1: Air Quality, overall GHGs generated by the CASP are expected to be greater than the applicable thresholds of 1,150 MT of CO2e per year for construction emissions, 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year for operational emissions during Year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year for operational emissions during Year 2050.

To lessen the significant GHG effect of the CASP, the Specific Plan and subsequent discretionary approvals such as tentative subdivision maps would be required to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

implement the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. This mitigation measure would ensure that the City is demonstrating progress towards meeting post-2020 and post-2030 State GHG emissions reduction goals. The mitigation measure incorporates the recognition that the GHG emissions reduction landscape will change over time by requiring impacts of individual future development projects within the Plan Area to be assessed and mitigated through the CEQA process consistent with GHG reduction plans in effect at the time the individual projects are proposed. Each individual project would be required to develop a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP), which would serve as a project- specific plan for the reduction of GHGs associated with individual projects. Individual projects would need to demonstrate consistency with a GHG threshold of significance, such as the per capita emissions thresholds derived under the previous "Thresholds of Significance" subsection, of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year for operational emissions during Year 2050, as feasible. emissions during Year 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year for operational The proposed project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. While the following mitigation measure would result in reduced GHGs, 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, although the CASP and the proponents of individual tentative maps would be required to implement the following mitigation measure, the Specific Plan was deemed to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the potential to generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

To date, neither the City of Salinas, nor any regional agency has prepared a qualified GHG reduction plan that is applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the City's current General Plan does not contain policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including GHG emissions from development within the Specific Plan.

The following provides an analysis of the CASP's consistency with (1) the current version of the statewide Scoping Plan, (2) Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-03-05, and (3) 2008 Monterey Bay Regional Energy Plan. Consistency with the CARB's California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: In accordance with AB 32, the CARB developed the first Scoping Plan in 2008 to outline the State's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. In May 2014, the CARB released and adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals and evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012. A new version of the Scoping Plan was then adopted by the CARB in December 2017 (entitled California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan). Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates in 2014 and 2017, State agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the Legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Building Standards (e.g., CALGreen and the 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards), the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and California Advanced Clean Cars).

The new buildings constructed and operated within the Specific Plan Area would be significantly more energy efficient than the current buildings in the surrounding area, many of which were constructed under previous versions of the Title 24 energy code.

Likewise, plumbing fixtures and landscaping installed as part of the project would result in a decrease in per capita water use compared to existing land uses throughout the City and the region. The proposed project would also need to operate in accordance with the goals of AB 341, which requires a 75 percent diversion rate of waste from landfills. Once development occurs within the boundaries of the CASP, the Specific Plan Area would become part of existing development within the State that can be subjected to a variety of future State or federal GHG reduction measures intended to target existing development to the extent they are legally applicable, such as a more stringent RPS. Thus, to the extent that California may choose to require that more than 50 percent of its electricity be generated with renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, the electricity supplied to the project site could get cleaner and cleaner over time, without any need for any further actions by landowners within the Specific Plan.

Additionally, the Plan Area's operational emissions would be reduced as additional regulations are implemented by the CARB and other State agencies to comply with the statewide GHG reduction targets. For example, the project's transportation emissions would be expected to decline as vehicle efficiency standards are implemented beyond the Advanced Clean Cars program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is strengthened.

Therefore, CASP emissions would continue to decline beyond the buildout year due to regulations that would indirectly affect project emissions. Therefore, recognizing the CARB as an authoritative substantial evidence source in evaluating post-2020 GHG impacts, the analysis in the Final EIR also evaluated whether buildout of the Specific Plan would interfere with the main programs the CARB has identified to support is conclusions that the State is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG targets - (1) initiative to install 12,000 MW of renewable distributed energy by 2020; (2) the California Building Standards Commission's goal to construct net zero energy homes after 2020; (3) existing building retrofits under AB 758; (4) the reduction in GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the 50 percent RPS under SB 350; (5) the ongoing implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); (6) the reduction in GHGs and other pollutants from the transportation sector expected to interfere with the State's goal to install 12,000 MW of renewable distributed generation systems by 2020. As of November 1, 2017, almost 10,520 MW of distributed generation capacity was operating or installed in California, with an additional 440 MW pending (CEC, 2017). The data include about 5,900 MW of behind-themeter solar, which far exceeds the State's California Solar Initiative (CSI) goal of 3,000 MW on residential and commercial sites by the end of 2016. In addition, California's existing CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

programs aimed at supporting renewable distributed generation could add another 1,600 MW, if fully subscribed (CEC, 2017).

Likewise, the Specific Plan is not anticipated to interfere with the ability of the California Building Standards Commission's goal of constructing net-zero energy homes after 2020, including the requirement that new homes built in California after Jan 1, 2020 must be equipped with a solar electric system. The Specific Plan is expected to be achieve full buildout by approximately 2040 and would be constructed to comply with existing building energy standards at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the State's ability to mandate net-zero energy homes for new construction after 2020.

Moreover, buildout of the Specific Plan would not interfere with the State's implementation of building retrofits to further energy efficiency for existing buildings under AB 758. AB 758, the Comprehensive Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings Law, tasked the CEC with developing and implementing a comprehensive program to increase energy efficiency in existing residential and nonresidential buildings that "fall significantly below the current standards in Title 24." (Pub. Resources Code, section 25943(a)(1).) Approximately 50 percent of existing residential and nonresidential buildings in California were constructed before California Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect in 1978. Other buildings constructed after 1978 also fall below current Title 24 standards and represent significant opportunities for energy efficiency improvements. Pursuant to AB 758, the CEC has developed an Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan that identifies strategies to implement energy efficient renovations for such existing commercial, residential, and publicly owned buildings. Development under the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the applicable Title 24 standards and, therefore, would not interfere with CEC or other initiatives implemented to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions associated with buildings that do not adhere to Title 24 standards. The Specific Plan and associated tentative subdivision maps would not interfere with the RPS, since they would not affect any retail seller of electricity. In addition, the State is well on its way to meeting the 50 percent RPS requirement by 2030, according to data available from the CPUC (CPUC, 2018).

Per the Final EIR, the Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, as described above. With implementation of the mitigation measures provided within Section 3.1: Air Quality and with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, there would be a less than significant impact. Impact
The City of Salinas must weigh the economic and social benefits of development against the environment impacts associated with development. 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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

The use of New Urbanism principles, which emphasize compact, walkable communities, and which were incorporated into the design of the CASP, will help minimize GHG emissions generated by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. 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 proposed 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.

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

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

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any)
The following Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions stated in the adopted Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dated November 2020 shall be required for any future development in the project area:

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 programs), 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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

If the project applicant concludes that sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance (i.e., per capita operational emissions level of 1.44 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2040, and 0.80 MT CO2e/service population/year by 2050), the project applicant shall include substantial evidence in the GGRP to this effect. The GGRP shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salinas Community Development Department prior to approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GGRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 iiii) 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 forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GGRP shall be 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.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Impact or Substantially
Vew Impac Mitigated by
Less than
Significant Jniform
Issue Mitigation Impact Fully
No Analyzed in
Impact the Prior EIR

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
(b) Create a significant hazard
to the
environmenpublic or the
through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
ne-quarter mile of an
xisting or proposed school
(d) Be located on a site which is •
included on a list ot
hazardous materials sites
pursuant
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
(e) For a project located within •
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
New Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant Applied
in Prior with Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
been adopted, within two
niles of a public airport or
ublic use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or
working in the project area?
(f) Impair implementation of or •
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(g) Expose people or structures, • •
either directly or indirectly to
a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the proposed tentative subdivision map's effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials, in part due to the mitigation measures required to reduce such effects. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map relating to hazards and hazardous materials.

Responses a-c): As the CASP Draft EIR explained on Page 1.0-18, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) The CASP is an approximately 760-acre Specific Plan Area that includes residential, mixed use commercial, public facilities, parks, and open space which include supplemental storm water detention/retention basins. These uses are not expected to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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. While the CASP includes three school sites within its boundaries, the land uses are not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste.

Implementation of the proposed project would have a less then significant impact relative to these topics.

The Specific Plan Area is not anticipated to have businesses or uses that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. New and existing infrastructure would be located near existing and planned schools within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area (at buildout) includes two elementary schools, and one middle school (see Sections 2.0 Project Description, and Section 3.9, Public Services, in the Final EIR for additional details on schools within the Planning Area). Existing and planned infrastructure that relates to hazards located within close proximity to proposed schools include:
• Water well construction and operation.
• Natural Gas Pipelines (existing as shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the Final EIR). •Overhead and electrical transmission lines (existing lines located along Boronda Road, proposed realignment along El Dorado Drive as shown in Section 2.0, Figure 2-4 of the Final EIR).

An existing PG&E electric substation (which will be expanded) is located in the north central portion of the Specific Plan Area, near the future extensions of Russell Road and Hemingway Drive. The expanded PG&E substation site will comprise approximately 4.5 net acres of land within the Specific Plan Area, plus a 2.4-acre 50-foot wide landscaped buffer surrounding the existing and new PG&E facilities and the Cal Water wells, storage, and water treatment facilities.

The other Cal Water well, storage, and water treatment facility is located just west of the proposed Alisal Elementary School site on an approximately 0.25-acre site next to the park. Alisal Water Corporation (ALCO) anticipates the need for three booster stations located along and within their easement for their 30" low pressure main, which runs through the center of the project adjacent to the PG&E tower line easement. Proposed facilities (along with any treatment facility if required) will be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City, and are subject to standards and permitting requirements of the Monterey County Health Department as described below in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3.

Responses d): The EIR will include a hazards analysis with a screening-level of Phase CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Il Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (limited soil sampling). The hazards analysis will include a review of existing ESAs and any other relevant studies for the Specific Plan Area to obtain a historical record of environmental conditions. The analysis will also include a review of recent records and aerial photographs. A site reconnaissance will be performed to observe the Specific Plan Area and potential areas of interest.

Public agencies will be interviewed to gather information on the current and historical use of the properties. If environmental conditions are identified, mitigation measures, as applicable, will be identified to address the environmental conditions. This section will provide an analysis including the methodology, thresholds of significance, a consistency analysis, cumulative impact analysis, and a discussion of feasible mitigation measures that should be implemented to reduce impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials.

A Phase I ESA was performed for the Specific Plan Area. The majority of the Specific Plan Area is currently in agricultural production and used extensively for row crops (strawberries, lettuce, raspberries, broccoli, etc.). Residential and agricultural-related buildings are located on the western portion of the Specific Plan Area. Agricultural equipment yards are located in the general vicinity of the buildings and throughout the remainder of the Specific Plan Area. The agricultural buildings and equipment yards are utilized to support the agricultural operations and some have been used or are currently being used to temporarily store fertilizers, pesticides, diesel fuel, gasoline, waste oil, and other materials normally associated with ongoing agricultural cultivation.

Due to the long-term use of the land for agricultural purposes, the Specific Plan Area has the potential for certain environmental conditions related I to pesticide application not encounter pesticide levels in shallow soil above regulatory screening levels.

The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs in connection with the Specific Plan Area:
• Current and historical use of the Specific Plan Area as agricultural lands and application of pesticides may have had impacted site soils with residual OCPs and associated elevated arsenic concentrations.
• Soil in the area of the residences and structures used to support the agricultural perations may be negatively impacted by metals (specifically lead from lead- based paint on older buildings) OPs from termiticide application; and PCB:
from window caulking or glazing in old buildings.
• The onsite structures may contain asbestos-containing building materials and lead containing paint.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

• A gasoline UST is registered for the Settrini Ranch at 250 Natividad Road (APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and -011). A gasoline UST was further observed at the ranch compound on APN 153-091-001 in addition to gasoline and diesel ASTs. A diesel AST was observed on APN 153-091- 015. Diesel and oil ASTs and drums were further observed on APN 153-091-010.
• Soil in the vicinity of the former electrical substation on APN 211-013-012 may contain PCBs associated with former transformers.

A Phase II ESA was conducted to evaluate the potential presence of OCPs and arsenic (chemicals of potential concern, COPC) in shallow onsite soils due to the historic agricultural use within the Specific Plan Area. The Phase II ESA included analysis of surface soil samples collected from areas throughout the Specific Plan Area.

The results of the Phase II ESA show that residual OCP concentrations are present in the onsite shallow soils, but at concentrations less than USEPA residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). Reported arsenic concentrations are within the range of naturally occurring background levels. Additional assessment of soil in the Specific Plan Area's agricultural fields for OPs and arsenic does not appear to be warranted at this time. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) related soil impacts (associated with pole- mounted transformers) may exist at the fenced former substation located on the southern portion of APN 211-013-012. Either documentation of completed investigations/mitigation or current soil sampling and analytical testing will be required to determine if subsurface impacts require further assessment or remediation prior to planned development.

Depending on the anticipated future use of the Specific Plan Area parcels, evaluation of the soil around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) for lead and termiticides should be considered before they are demolished or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed.

Additionally, based on the age of these structures, it is possible that asbestos- containing materials and/or lead-containing paint are present in the building materials.

An asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing paint survey should be considered prior to demolition of the Specific Plan Area structures. Any unused agricultural and domestic wells in the Specific Plan Area will require proper abandonment per Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development.

Any undocumented subsurface features encountered during development-related construction excavations including USTs, wells, sumps, septic systems, asbestos- containing pipe, debris dumps, treated wood waste, etc., will require proper removal in accordance with any applicable regulatory permit requirements.

Per the Final EIR, 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Two privately owned public utility companies provide domestic water service to the City of Salinas: Alisal Water Corporation (ALCO) and Cal Water. The current division of service areas splits the Central Area Specific Plan in half approximately along the PG&E powerline with ALCO serving the eastern half and Cal Water serving the western half of the Specific Plan Area. Both ALCO and Cal Water have produced Water Supply Assessments (WSA) per the requirements of Senate Bill 610 (Stats. 2001, ch. 643) (Wat Code, § 10910 et seq; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15155) (see Appendix G of the Final EIR). ALCO and Cal Water have submitted a "Will Serve" letters indicating that they can provide water service to the proposed Specific Plan Area. As development of the Specific Plan occurs, existing agricultural wells will be taken out of production.

Two Cal Water wells are planned be installed within the Specific Plan Area. According to Cal Water's Assessment Report, it is expected that the proposed wells within the Specific Plan Area have a high probability of meeting current drinking water quality standards. As a hedge against possible future changes in water quality, Cal Water may make provisions for on-site treatment with the design of the wells for the Specific Plan development. To ensure high quality drinking water, Cal Water tests its municipal source water at the source and in the distribution system for compliance with drinking water standards. In 2015, Cal Water conducted tests on approximately 68,000 water samples to ensure compliance with both State and federal drinking water standards.

Additionally, all well sites will be screened from adjacent uses and to limit access to the well sites. This access exclusion minimizes potential hazards to adults or children as a result of well placement. The well sites are also subject to drainage plan requirements to prevent flooding from storm events or well failure. It is not anticipated that well failure would result in flooding given the continual maintenance regime during operational use.

However, in the event of a failure, flooding would be directed into the storm drainage system to prevent flooding. The likelihood of a well causing flooding is considered low, given that the well pump would be shut down in the event of any failure, and without the pump there would not be significant pressure to cause significant flooding. PG&E operates an existing 4.0-inch steel natural gas transmission pipeline located along Rogge Road and Natividad Road on the western perimeter of the Specific Plan Area.

The locations of natural gas transmission pipelines near the Specific Plan Area are shown on Figure 3.5-1 of the Final EIR. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 5, Article 2 (School Sites) § 14010 (Standards for School Site Selection) (h) identifies that sites shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1,500 feet of the easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study. Education Code section 17213 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

(a)(3) states that pipelines carrying natural gas to supply the school site or neighborhood are permitted, and the CCR Title 5, Article 2 § 14011 requires a school district, in selecting a site for a new school, to issue written findings stating that the Specific Plan Area does not contain pipelines which carry hazardous wastes or substances other than a natural gas supply line to that school or neighborhood. The natural gas pipeline network is designed to provide adequate distribution of natural gas to meet the demands of residents within the City of Salinas and the Specific Plan Area.

Any future development of school sites would be required to comply with school siting standards including potential requirements for a site-specific gas pipeline risks analysis.

Additionally, CCR § 14010 (d) places additional standards if the proposed school site is within 1,500 feet of a railroad track easement, and includes the presence of high pressure gas lines near the tracks that could rupture in the event of a derailment.

The nearest railroad lines are located along the southern portion of the City, approximately 2.5 miles from the Specific Plan Area at the nearest point. Thus, rail operations would not impact safety or school site selection in relation to nearby natural gas infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area.

Monterey Bay Community Power is the primary provider of electrical services to the City of Salinas. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) also provides electrical services to the City of Salinas. PG&E indicates that sufficient primary line power service exists in close proximity to the proposed development area. PG&E currently operates a 12-kV overhead power line along Old Stage Road and Williams Road. A 12 kV underground primary line exists along Boronda Road. PG&E also maintains 112 kV transmission lines and corresponding easements along the northwest side of Old Stage Road, westerly along the proposed Russell Road alignment, and southerly down the middle of the Specific Plan Area. As mentioned previously, PG&E plans to install a substation near the intersection of the proposed Russell Road alignment and the central north to south transmission lines. The substation will be subject to the City's approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Article 6, Division 8 of the Zoning Code to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. The California Code of Regulations Title 5, Article 2 (School Sites) § 14010 (Standards for School Site Selection) (c) requires setbacks from overhead power lines by transmission type.

The CASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes mitigation measures that ensure water well construction comply with standards and requirements for well construction established by the Monterey County Health Department. Operation of onsite wells will be regulated by Cal Water and will include water quality testing to ensure that water quality meets State and federal drinking water standards. Additionally, well uses within the Specific Plan Area will be screened from adjacent uses.

CONCLUSION
As described previously, the CASP and approvals implementing it do not pose significant hazards from existing natural gas transmission piping, and mitigation CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

measures identified previously in the Final EIR would ensure water well construction and abandonment impacts would be less than significant. However, implementation of the project may create a 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). The following mitigation measures 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. As such, Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue. The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Monterey County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution to hazards and hazardous materials.

Responses e-f): The proposed 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. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact relative to this environmental topic.

Responses g): The City has adopted a Multi-hazard Emergency Plan, which serves as extensions of the California Emergency Plan and the Emergency Resource Management Plan. The purpose of the Multihazard Emergency Plan is to respond to emergency situations with a coordinated system of emergency service providers and facilities. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Salinas serves as the center of the City's emergency operations. The Plan also addresses evacuation and movement of r operations Camera. people in the event of an emergency. The proposed project does not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the Multi-hazard Emergency Plan.

Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

Responses h): The CASP is not located in an area that is considered a high risk for wildfires. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

Applicable Mitigation from Prior EIR (if any).

The following Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials stated in the adopted Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan dates Vovember 2020 shall be required for any future development in the project area:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to:
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.
2) Investigate structures for asbestos-containing materials and lead. If asbestos containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, or around the perimeters of the foundations if structures have already been removed, a Cal- OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S.

EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. Any ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

In addition, any construction activity that involves the disturbance or removal of building materials or structures must be thoroughly inspected for asbestos by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) prior to the construction activity, as regulated by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants) and Air District Rule 424.

Work to remove any regulated quantities of asbestos must be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.

Any load-bearing removal in the structures is defined as a demolition activity by the Federal EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulation and District Rule 424. This activity must also be notified to the Air District at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of work.
3) The two known gasoline USTs located on APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and - 011 and APN 153-091-001 shall require proper removal in accordance with Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development. Any unused fuel and oil ASTs and containers located in the vicinity of the agricultural buildings and equipment yards shall be properly removed and recycled or disposed of. Any associated petroleum hydrocarbon subsurface CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

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 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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: The property line of all school sites (even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (0) of § 14010) shall be at least the following distance trom 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.

Relevant Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (if any) Not applicable
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant Applied
with Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY. Would the project:
(a) iolate any water quality • •
tandards or waste
discharge requirements or
substantially
degrade surface or ground
(b) Substantially decrease П
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?
(c) Substantially alter the •
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of
the course of a stream or
river, or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces in a manner
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Substantially
Impact or
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Applied
signiticant Impact Fully Development
Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Issue Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
which would:
i. Result in substantial •
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on-or
offsite;
ili. Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood D
flows?
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Conflict with or obstruct •
(e)
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plans?
(1) With regards to NPDES
compliance:
(i) Potential impact of
project construction
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Substantially
Mitigated by
ess that Uniformly
ignifican Applied
Issue Mitigation Impact Fully Policies ort
No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
on storm water
runoff?
(ii) Potential impact of •
project post-
construction activity
on storm water
runoff?
(iii) Potential for •
discharge of storm
water from material
storage areas, vehicle
or equipment fueling,
vehicle or equipment
maintenance
(including washing),
waste handling,
hazardous materials
handling or storage,
delivery areas or
loading docks, or
other outdoor work
areas?
(iv) Potential for •
discharge of storm
water to impair the
beneficial uses of the
receiving waters or
areas that provide
water quality benefit?
(V) Potential for the • X
discharge of storm
water to cause
significant harm on
the biological integrity
of the waterways and
water bodies?
(vi) Potential for • •
•
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant Substantially
Impact or Mitigated by
New Impact Uniformly
Less than Applied
Significant Development
with Impact Fully
Mitigation No Analyzed in Standards
Issue Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR
significant changes in
the flow velocity or
volume of storm water
runoff that can cause
environmental harm?
(vil) Potential for
significant increases
in erosion of the
project site or
surrounding areas?
(vili) Could this proposed
project result in an
increase in pollutant
discharges
receiving waters?
Consider water
quality parameters
such as
temperature,
dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, and other
typical Stormwater
pollutants (e.g
heavy netals
pathogens,
petroleum
derivatives,
synthetic organics,
sediment, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding
substances, and
trash).

D X
(ix) Could the proposed
project result in a
decrease in treatment
and retention capacity
for the site's
Stormwater run-on?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
Vew Less
New
Significant
Substantially
Mitigated by
Unitiend
Issue Mitigation Impact Fully
No Analyzed in
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR
(x) Could the proposed • • •
project result
significant alteration
of receiving water
quality during
following
construction?
(xil Could the proposed
project result
increased impervious
surfaces and
associated increased
urban runoff?
(xil) Could the proposed
project create a
significant adverse
environmental impact
to drainage patterns
due to changes in
urban runoff flow
rates and/or volumes?
(xill) Could the proposed
project result •
increased erosion
downstream?
(xiv) Could the proposed
project alter the
natural ranges of
sediment supply and
transport to receiving
waters?
(xv) Is the project tributary •
to an already impaired X
water body, as listed
on the CWA Section
303(d) list? If so, can
it result in an increase
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Significant Applied
Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
in any pollutant for
which the water body
s already impaired?
(xvi) Could the proposed
prentaly significant project have
environmental impact
on surface water
quality, to either
narine, fresh, or
wetland waters?
(xvii) Could the proposed
project result in
decreased baseflow
quantities to receiving
surface waterbodies?
(xviii) Could the proposed
project cause of
contribute to an
exceedance of
applicable surface or
groundwater receiving
objectives or
degradation of
beneficial uses?
(xix) Does the proposed
project adversely
impact the hydrologic
or water quality
function of the 100-
year floodplain area?
(xx) Does the proposed • D
project site layout
adhere to the
Permittee's waterbody
setback
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact or Substantially
New Impact Mitigated by
Less than Uniformly
Significant Applied
with Impact Fully Development
Issue Mitigation No Analyzed in Policies or
Incorporated Impact the Prior EIR Standards
requirements?
(xxi) Can the proposed •
impact •
project
aquatic, wetland, or
riparian habitat?
Discussion
Overall conclusion: The CASP EIR provides project-level detail with respect to the proposed tentative subdivision map's effects relating to hydrology and water quality, in part due to the comprehensive character of the mitigation measures required to reduce such effects. The tentative map would create new legal parcels but would not directly authorize any development that would require future discretionary approvals from the City. Those would have to be obtained separately at a later point in time. No additional site-specific environmental analysis is required to fully address the impacts of the proposed tentative subdivision map relating to hydrology and water quality.

Responses a-f): Flood hazards can result from intense rain, snowmelt, cloudbursts, or a combination of all three, or from failure of a water impoundment structure, such as a dam. Floods from rainstorms generally occur in this climate zone between November and April and are characterized by high peak flows of moderate duration. Human activities have an effect on water quality when chemicals, heavy metals, hydrocarbons (auto emissions and car crank case oil), and other materials are transported with storm water into drainage systems. Construction activities can increase sediment runoff, including concrete waste and other pollutants.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 ensures compliance with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

CONCLUSION
The proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. 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 Specific Plan Area. The BMPs may include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. The use of these measures would prevent polluted, non-treated runoff from entering the nearby storm drains and waterways. The various RWQCBs have evaluated the effectiveness of the types of BMPs required by Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 and have determined that BMPs are known to be effective in protecting receiving waters. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires submittal of Improvement Plans which contain requirements that meet the City's NPDES permit requirements and the City's Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. Also, current agricultural operations in the Specific Plan Area (baseline conditions) lead to some levels of erosion and downstream turbidity, as well as other pollution entering the drainage system. The proposed project would result in the elimination of the agricultural runoff, which would be replaced with the development of a controlled storm drainage system implementing the latest BMPs.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

The proposed stormwater drainage system will need to meet a number of requirements from the City of Salinas, the County of Monterey, and the State of California. These include LID requirements, water quality treatment requirements, and hydromodification mitigation requirements. In addition to fulfilling these requirements, the Central Area Specific Plan is required to utilize site and parcel based post-construction BMPs to the maximum extent practicable, to:
• maximize stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge; • filter any stormwater runoff to meet water quality requirements; • reduce the cost of "grey" infrastructure in favor of "green" infrastructure; and • mitigate the post-project peak storm water runoff rates and storm water runoff volumes with the intent of avoiding negative impacts to any downstream facility.

The basin designs would incorporate features that provide stormwater quality benefits, while still meeting flood control needs. As part of the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, the Permittee would be required to review existing numeric sizing criteria for structural treatment BMPs and to ensure that volume-based BMPs are designed to mitigate for potential pollutants, either through infiltration or treatment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

There are no plans to discharge stormwaters into the existing City of Salinas storm drain system. Storm drains within the Specific Plan Area will convey stormwaters to detention/retention/water quality basins in the creek corridors and eventually into Gabilan Creek and Natividad Creek. Waters that do not infiltrate or evaporate will be released following discharge requirements, and conveyed downstream into Carr Lake and the Reclamation Ditch system. Listed impairments of these receiving waters include: nitrate, ammonia, fecal coliforms, E. Coli, turbidity, priority organics, pesticides, copper, and low pH. If runoff from the Specific Plan Area is not treated, then increases in the listed water quality impairments for these receiving waters would be likely.

The NPDES permit granted to the City of Salinas by the Central Coast RWQCB (RWQCB - Central Coast Region, 2019) prohibits discharges which contribute to exceedances of water quality standards and requires that source control BMPs are implemented to minimize discharge of pollutants. The permit defines one Total Maximum Daily Load limitation for these receiving waters: fecal coliform concentrations must not exceed 200 MPN/100 MI. Untreated stormwater discharges have the potential to contribute fecal coliforms to receiving waters, due to the presence animal wastes in impervious and landscaped areas.

The City of Salinas Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects (City of Salinas, 2013) require the following water quality practices:

I. Pollution source control for all impervious areas using BMPs; and II. Retention of all rainfall events up to the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event.

Stormwater discharges from the Specific Plan Area, if not treated, would violate the City of Salinas NPDES permit as well as the City of Salinas stormwater development standards, and would likely contribute to violations of the receiving water TMDL for fecal coliforms. Water quality treatment will be provided through the combination of both LID (source control) and BMP (treatment control) methods and facilities. The proposed project has incorporated space for bioswales along many of the proposed roads. Local surface runoff will either sheet flow to or be collected and conveyed through the bio- swales. In addition to the LID features, runoff from the Specific Plan Area will be treated by the neighborhood detention, water quality, and retention basins as well as water quality basins located within the parks throughout the Specific Plan Area. The neighborhood water quality basins are treatment control BMPs designed to collect overflow from adjacent overland surface flow and concentrated pipe discharge, treat runoff by attenuating flows to allow settlement of sediments, and then overflow back to the downstream storm drain system.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department

CONCLUSION
Like the overall CASP itself, the proposed tentative subdivision map has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation.

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 3.6-2 through 3.6-4 and have determined that BMPs are known to be effective in protecting receiving waters. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-3 through 3.6-5, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

The quantity of ground water in the Salinas Valley has been declining for decades, as evidenced by the substantial lowering of water levels in the aquifers. Impacts on groundwater in the Salinas area are an important consideration in any development plan. See Impact 3.11-6 in Chapter 3.11: Utilities in the Final EIR, for further discussions regarding groundwater demand, groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and saltwater intrusion. Impacts related to groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge are considered in two ways: (1) conversion of pervious surfaces (which allow for groundwater recharge), and (2) use of groundwater as a water supply (which reduces the amount of local groundwater supply). Additionally, Monterey County is located in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The potential for the project to impede sustainable groundwater management of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is also discussed below.

The proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.

The proposed development, including water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins, is designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering surface water courses and storm drains. The stormwater runoff calculations completed as part of the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Study (see Appendix F of the Final EIR) 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. Consequently, infiltration into the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist - (TM 2021-001) City of Salinas - Community Development Department