North Vicinity Map
TENTATIVE MAP 2021-001
APN: 153-091-015-000
Exhibit A
/:\ComDev Planning Share SpacelTentative MapsIT 2021-001 (CASP)/Vicinity Map for TM 2021-001.docx Exhibit E
TENTATIVE MAP
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY SHOS
PROJECT 20ir-019 40) 3%
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA
GENFR AT- NOTAS
ULTIM BINAL SERPONISY RR BILERON TE ENDO SHOUN ON TIIS SIAP * TICHEDA TED OCTA EY, AS SICWS IS BASED (N AEKIAL SURVEYS PERFORNED BY TETRA VICINITY MAP E NESE A MAEE BND SENE PER FECKO INSIANCE RATE NAPS NO. NO SCALE
TORIUOPE ART BOR INOTIATION BURSE ONLN AND ARE NORIND ASINAL SHEET INDEX ENEATAS, AND LETES ARE SUARET TO CANGE AND VIEL BE CEBNLD SHEET NO.
NILO DE SEED N PAL EA ARE PRELANIAZI AND SIRACT TOCANDE AND
OSTINO CONDITION
STREIT SECTIONS
FRECT SECTIONE
OTTNG PL NN
.2810=*= ORAND RYERANO PIAN
! ANOT ALIE LINE SIXIA: AKE TO BE DEDICATED TG.1SD FRELISINAARY UTILIIES PLAN owysTre Mutwe Sitte& Aital
STORSIWATER BASIN WEST
TENTATIVE MAP 1335 37111
REITS TE EUNITUE MIRCEAE ET TO AFTECAT ARIING EASEMENTS CA UTHEM STORNWATTR BASIN FAST
REZINVARY TRASDO CALLTUG
APENDY D FOR TITE BRO ONICAL RESURCE ROE ROMENTAL IMPACT KEAOKT INER SINENASIITES
PROJECT INFORMATION 'SVNNVS
ATH COSARIADI ROID ARTTNATNT AVD
OWNER: APPLICANT:
SANODYAL MANLODET TERPKATMAPSSOSNMONTRALASTA SIEMNOMAP
SINCH ]
CIVIL ENGINEER:
TOTALA AS AC
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:
LOCATION MAP
w.ED OFEL.CPA01.01.CO
HRAY HONORS
LEGEND |
TY SE SALAT
SAD A ELECTE TACT/S OAS& ELDCTRIC DESCRIPTION EXISTING
ABBREVIATIONS
EX
CONTOUR
PAD ELEVATICK
• 302 =
.. c' x=X DREGAN OF SURFACE NON декрия.
VOR AND ROTAC
CALFORNIA SALINAS, (
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5TH SUBMITTAL
RIA 1*-200*
TENTATIVE MAP
SHEET REVISIONS
012150'13°E 17.85) (R3) (43446197 57.94Y(R7) (N560513C 36.82Y(87) DETAIL B (R9) (RO
NTS
DETAIL A N114902°E 237.56 CALE IN FEET: 1'. 200
FAL (183-08-214)
JNY 1134 818HS/ 03153803 831YMHS39
FLOGO ZONE A FLOCOMAY 3 FLOOD ZONE X
EGEND
IS RAK
SURVEYORS SAx: (408) 610-0303
RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
• LS-2 ULTMATE (PUBLIC ) 8-1 INTERIM (PUBLIC)
ENGINES CAR PROTO G
1 XC-1 (PUBLIC) € LS-3 INTERIM (PUBLIS) ) E-1 ULTIMATE (PUBLIC)
CALFORNIA
) LS-S ULTIMATE (PUBLIC) E-2 INTERIM (PUBLIC) STREET SECTIONS
TENTATIVE MAP CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
SALINAS,
ANDSCAVE PARANO TI SLAVEL LANE
RVC-2 (PUBLIC) © MS-1 (PUBUC) ® E-2 ULTIMATE (PUBLIC)
5 же 2 2023
SOUTH GREENWAY STREET (EUBUC) LS-L (PUBLIC)
5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023
HAVE LAC
ATE:
MS-2 VLIMATE (PUBLIC) LS-2 INTERIM (PUBLIC)
103 ND.
03 SEE * LS-2 ULTMATE (PUBUIC LS-2 INTERM (PUBLIC)
SA-3 (PRIVATE ALLEY MITH PARKING L0 AE/13 15
TAIL LANE 13 172A5
VANT, RED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
OCTOBER 2023 5TH SUBMITTAL * HEMINGWAY PRIVE
® A-2 (PRIVATE) • A-2 (PRIVATE)
LAT DARNS AND ACE PLACE MARIONY MAT DEAR ON A RAGE APARADIT ост 2023 DATE
SE ALLY ORCIAL
VIET LEAT
M HEMINGWAY DRIVE
(P A-1 (PRIVATE)
MOSCAR
SALINAS,
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY STREET SECTIONS TENTATIVE MAP S-6 (PUBLIC) EAST BORONDA ROAR CALIFORNIA Se======== 3 2 2 292
RAVE LANE
BƠ RAN
* DISING PAVONT 32 TRAVEL MAT
S-5 (PUBLIC)
RAVEL LANE
SOUTH GREENWAY STREET (PUBLIC) I A-4 (PRIVATE ALLEY W% PARKING ONE SIDE).
KOINEERS SPEARRERS S SUKYLTORS RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR RA 5 NUE
PARANOT
(406) 848-0302 SALINAS,
• SURVEYORS CALIFORNIA ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIOLI OCTOBER 2023 RA DETAILS 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP ST(CК HEET REVISIONS DATE MK
MPE 1 PCC.
VV
GRADING
PATO AND
VV
YPICAL
s2oz 100
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY CONFORMANCE
dasta 0392=39 4770 33223232380 2893922953฿
53193
111111112 1119
reposed Duelin 19389380353
124
(NOT A PART)
150
162
sonn
161
LANE LEVER BOTH IS ARRANT WITH CAP TAE HI 140-
URACSACHITY
Exhibit z
510(0) 150-0302
RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAF NONE: (008) 816-0500
ENGINEERS
APN 211-013-012 KEY MAP
NATIVIDAD ROAD.
SALINAS. LLC
LOTTING NOTES
ATION ONLY ANT
AT NOT INTENDED AT PAD FOR DATE
STRUCT POOPECT
ECTION I MEASURED BASED ON CALFORNIA
TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
LOTTING LEGEND
SALINAS,
* 2> LOT NUMBES
APN 153-091-017
JARTNELL FOUNDATION
PROPOSED BOUNDARY
PORE TRANSMISSION LINE 1'-50" BATT ост 2023
STATE MACI NON ACCESS STRIP
EDGE CE PAVEMENT
SHEET REVISIONS OCTOBER 2023
SEE SHEET 9 SEE SHEET 10 100 07 e3
SCALE IN FEET: 1"- 50° 10B FROS
ist=
APN 211-013-012 RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
NATIVIDAD ROAD, SEE SHEET 7
SALINAS, LLC
KEY MAP
JIAL AST
LOTTING NOTES
99. 35
ARE NETTENDID AT PAD ROR ITICATION ONLY AND
ACTRET TO HOTMANIA BAKERS ANAL BENNAEY AND
10, 0
1230 :5
& PROBERT PROPERTY CALIFORNIA
,200 A SP
TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN
132, 57
150. 0
100 « SP SALINAS,
1,100 : 3г
2100. 5r
3040 - 55
CODIROLI
100: 52
SEE SHEET 9 3 * × 2
APN 153-091-001
CHRISTENSEN
sies 9 s500 @
SET REYERON: 5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023
180 =55
35 roixt
409 = SF
SEE SHEET 12
Fre (401) E2-0302 CAUFORNIA SALINAS, Ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY DUTY
LOTTING PLAN 1'-30"
RA TENTATIVE MAP
DUSTING SCeNDARY EX LOT LINE 1405030703077 NEN AOCESS STRIP RIDE OF TAVENENT OTTING NOTES STONE RED DATED ON SALINES MINERAL CODE SCALE IN FEET: 1º- 50° * >
SEE SHEET 10
FOUNDATION
APN 153-091-017 HARTNELL
PaTs
SEE SHEET 7
K05 8
35•00 W
B540006 G
55-00% 9
SEE SHEET 8
SEE SHEET 7
RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR It (02) 61S-0550 TAX: (53) 110-0202 APN 153-091-017
HARTNELL FoUNdATioN СТАРАВИТ
KEY MAP
* ARE AT A RADIO: IDINTITCATICAS CARLY AND
= SEE MINDER ARAL DEMARY: AND
APN 153-091-017
HARTNELL FOUNDATION
STRATOIL & PROBERT PROPERTY CALIFORNIA
CIPAL CODE
TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN
SALINAS,
PAL AN
CODIROLI
BERNED DIENDS
APN 151-091-014 XLOT LAG
SALINAS UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEE SHEET 12 1'-50* RATE
NON ACCENS STRIP
EDGE OF PALEMENT
15* (059
SONTHAVERONS STH SUBMITTAL- OCTOBER 2023
10 SEE SHEET 13 SEE SHEET 14
SCALE IN FEET: 1°- 50*
CAUFORNIA SALINAS, OCT 2023
SURVEYORS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- 108 072019 LOTTING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
RA 1'-50'
TENTATIVE MAP SHEET REVISIONS
KEY MAP LOTTING NOTES STAKE CRIMEANT DO AND ALL BEENERAKY AND EASTS OR OTHER RONT TO COASTLET SCALE IN FEET: 1"ea 50° " 2>
SEE SHEET 12 SEE SHEET 16
15+ 005т
000>51 190•S7 1.0001s
7 REST A TRADED
101$100
STOCY 557500c
IS Cort a 100. 52 5 1600T
120. So 6,700 = 57
35707 00
атої а
SEE SHEET 8
SEE SHEET 15
APN 153-091-011 ALISAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
APN 153-091-005 CHRISTENSEN
ON 0 6-000 FA (405) 010-0302 HONES
CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
XT 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 RA LOTTING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
1-50*
TENTATIVE MAP
SMOKET REVISIONS
LOTNUNDER STINO ENDARY SAC TXANSMISSICH LINE
"OE NOT INTENDID AS PAD FOR IDENTICATION ONLY AND LOT LINE: KLOTEINI
KEY MAP LOTTING NOTES NONE BASEMENT HOTTEST TO CONTRACTE LOTTING LEGEND • 2 >
SEE SHEET 10 SEE SHEET 13
SEE SHEET 9
SEE SHEET 8
1,00, 5* 19C + s5
85 TACT
15+001%
SEE SHEET 11
ONE: STONEBROGE HONES
PHONE (409) E18-0330 VAXC (208) 843-0322 CAUFORNIA SALINAS, SURVEYORS ENGINEERS OCT 2023 SHEET
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- 13 STH SUBMITTAL 93025: OB N07208S
RA LOTTING PLAN 1'-50* Oт 53
TENTATIVE MAP эсих HRET REVISIONS
INDAKY
PARCEL XASE LOTARE USTINU BCU PROPOSED BLANDASY MiXE TRAATASSOCHLNE NON 100233 31X3> COCE OF FATEMENT
KEY MAP E NOT INTENDE ASPED POE GAZTAND LOT LAT CASENT
LOTTING NOTES NG LEGEND SCALE IN FEET: 1'- 50'
* > mmm.
SEE SHEET 14 SEE SHEET 17
8786
И 160Cь
12010
220150
260 NICE ISP
259
BRUCE -
55r055 5105 LA 513067
1510059
151005
SEE SHEET 10 275 8-000
85-05:
451005% SEE SHEET 21
15000)
13*00CS
is•coro
3200:5
243
SEE SHEET 12
2(26-0 401251 542-030 CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023
RA LOTTING PLAN STH SUBMITTAL
1'-50"
TENTATIVE MAP
ULLEY BACK OF CURB NON ACCESS STKI ROUE CO PAVENIENT
KEY. MAP ARE NOT INDED AS FIND TO IDENTICATIN CILY AND IN RASHN OTTING NOTES SCALE IN FEET: 1"- 50°
LOTTING
* 2%
SEE SHEET 18
338 SEE SHEET 18
X00IN
291 LIC I ST
SET 2N501
!
1500 x 55
392
100157
HARTNELL FOUNDATION ®
Amas C
APN 153-091-010 190.50
285
5310: 55 30!
35-006% 4300 • 55
2ESY A CRUALICI
5'0>
I5°057
5.0C•
15:051
SEE SHEET 13
FWONEE (800) B13- CAUFORNIA SALINAS,
ост 2023
SURVEYORS OCTOBER 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR •ITT
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
RIA LOTTING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP KALI
PARCELNINE LOTNINDE COOE OF PASENIENT
Cxc.
KEY MAP OTTING NOTES LOE NOT INTENDED AS FINDAD POR IDENT SOMEETEO KER ENET RING AREN FENINARY AND LOTTING LEGEND * X > SCALE IN FEET: 1°= 50*
SEE SHEET 12
iO)ISEIST
17 sawi 3
srorr o
178 15•p09 i
Sar 9
35YO9
BrOKE
Sr0s C
_ STMEETM (CURLS)
103102|101/100|99 NO LSE
122
s•ow to
5M0, 50 HH!
TORUNHFTELTINIS
SEE SHEET 11
*051)
SEE SHEET 19
•,160 , 57
APN 153-091-011 ALISAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
,:00
6 S
143
„o!yX] 91
CALE IN FEET: 1'= 50°
SEE SHEET 21
H CONDOLNITSAAX
OCTOBER 2023 5TH-SUBMITTAL 5060 3
HEET REVISIONS SEE SHEET 21 SEE SHEET 19
EDGE OF PAVIUENT Ds-usi 5
NON ACCEIO STRII
==3 Đ-
BATT 1'-30* 018.6375
EX CAIGIENT
EX LOTUINE
LOT LNt
omn amnae
CRISTINO OCUNDARY
3 % _MBUEL AUSOLIO)
KUNErIT
X>
PARCEL NAME
SALINAS,
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY LOTTING PLAN TENTATIVE MAP
5P6Y S
CALFORNIA
NO CETE SI NEONS SLR01 CRITTLN 3O XICHN IIMETT
35CONDO UNITS M.AX
ALOENG EASENENT: CE COIE BIET
LOTECT GHEPNENET BREND ARL SEINAR Y AND
INDEO FOR IDENTICAO ONE T.AND
L.OTTING NOTES
SEE SHEET 13
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR RIA
EYEYORS
SEE SHEET 12
rDe (400) 118-0302 CAUFORNIA SALINAS, ОСТ 2023
MOINELRS • PLANNIRS • SOAYCTORS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY BATT OCTOBER 2023- 17 RA LOTTING PLAN 5TH-SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP SIDEET NEVISIONS
AlPA AMER ANealiaetengapat co NON ACCESS STXUP
KEY MAP DEENOINTEED ATEROD TUR IDENTICATHON CALY AND 11 LOTTING NOTES LOTEIE EO ROTAAT NS ARL PEEYARY AND ALATEN ATINT OE CAE RUTETO ASTANTT SCALE IN FEET: 1%- 50° 7 >
SEE SHEET 18
293 (3)
oent: 13121s
122
38:55 3
SEE SHEET 14 SULAIIYO SIATE VIr
AOL SO E
302
SEE SHEET 22
304
7,
FI0SS
10060
ліко 15 TOK% T0S 8 SEE SHEET 21
SEE SHEET 13 15-000 150056
270
85 1005% 15105
151500 t5 r10Y
**00:
as-cer» Es-se ri
SEE SHEET 13 SEE SHEET 21
uOlUxe
SEE SHEET 14
298
VIBERT RA RUGGERI JENSEN-AZAR
WANCISE
180• SF :
293 307
10:5
APN 153-091-010
309 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
00 1 55
310
No. St 9290=55
LOTTING NOTES
SO NONTENDED AND A IDENTIRCATION ONLY AND
354 334
CALIFORNIA
n00=5
SEE SHEET 17 TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY 21<
200: 3
LOTTING LEGEND SAUNAS,
PAOCEL NAVE
316
12100. 55 LOT NUMBEX
KUAKE FEET
:
EXISTING BOUNDARY OR: STONEEROCE HOUTS
да -
6330120222818 PROPOSED BOUNDARS
EX LOT LINE
310
1,70: 55
410015E 1-50' BuTs ост 2025
12015 AUSY BROX OS CURE
372 POLE TRAXEMISSSON LINE
NON ACCESE STRIP
363 TOOT CE PAVEMENT
AMAST
5,730e 38
STH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023-
300 = 59
368
200 к 91
STREET VIKALIC DATE XX
SCALE IN FEET: 1°- 50° 108 7000
bl
CAUFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- RIA LOTTING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL:
TENTATIVE MAP
LICEL NANT
KEY MAR LOTTING NOTES
LOTTING
2 5 4 5
SEE SHEET 20
==7 0-
35-00 C
55•003
500 27
24213r
51055
00 3 LE
351000%
14 TRITO ALC
til
50055 165 000. *
193
Antone
192
X600 : Se
300, 09
SEE SHEET 15
186 E 100.5 E 2180.58
211
212
AUTOR DONDA HONE
181 180
8,500 = 55
TAX (10a) 660-0302
CHOINCERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS CARNA SALINAS, ост 2023 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 SHEE
RIA LOTTING PLAN STH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP 15-50'
SHEET REVISIONS
BERTHS ASURED BASED CHISALES MANICAL COCK ARCEL NAU COOR CE PASSANT
KEY MAP OTTING NOTES RING EASE AT OR OIL BITE TO COE
SEE SHEET 21
SEE SHEET 16
==] Đ-
55:0095 :
479V• s500 2f
SEE SHEET 15 SEE SHEET 19
SEE SHEET 13 SEE SHEET 17
PAO (400) B16-0302
278
RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
>70
200s
SEE SHEET 17
KEY MAP
LOTTING NOTES
100 + 55 2300 = 31 14%.9 CONCR ADE NOTINTED ASTED FOR DEMIRCHDON ONEY. ND
SO BRETO TENDS DARN AEL HELENAND
CALIFORNIA
* LOTTE MEASURED BASED A BAINASANATAL FADE
SEE SHEET 20 TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN CODIROLl & PROBERT PROPERTY 415
4980 + 55
411
3801K01949- 410 416 SALINAS,
LOTNUNDER
417
408 MARC SET
SEE SHEET 22
+18
1000 / 37 POST DAY
405 10).x 419 LOT UNT
3,322 = 38 EXLOT UNC
404
7,
403 220-5 OCT 2023
100. 01 1'-50*
ALLEY BACK OF CURA
SOMES AND
APN 153-071-034
SCAGLIOTTI, PURA 5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023
2101X-
21 SCALE IN FEET: 1% 50°
HONES
CHOINEERS • PLANNERS • CALIFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY BATT OCTOBER 2023 RA LOTTING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 22
TENTATIVE MAP 12
DATT.
EX CUMENT ALLEY BACK OF CURR MAXII TRANSATSSICAS LIAN MAATIES SE CODE OF PAVEMDIT
KEY MAP POVATE LOT LINE EX LOT LINE
LOTTING NOTES SULECT TO REPERAT DUREND FINAL BEENAKY AND LOTTING LEGEND 3* * 5 >
SEE SHEET 23
HERES TEN
4500 + SF
SEE SHEET 18
422 IS UNITS MAK
APN 153-071-035 SCALOTTI PARA
SEE SHEET 17 STRET SINALS
APN 153-071-034 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
4 IRITALCLUUCI
1300 1 37
418 430 0n• 9
2796S8
SEE SHEET 21
JOLUX-
375 10-0002
9200, 57
373
371 APN 153-101-005
1000. 55 HELMERS
000 • 99
*200 = SE KEY. MAP
365
368 OTTING NOTE!
ENTUNCATION CALY ANT
SIRE VISIO
700:9
SENT SHANG
100 e 35 |
CALIFORNIA
SOCION SHE SURED BASED ON SILVAS MISCERAL OSCE
TENTATIVE MAP LOTTING PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
3290-58
SEE SHEET 22
LOTTING LEGEND
A20019 SALINAS,
PARCEL NAME
343 * * > LOTINE
50. O
2A1LS
MULATE
COSTAG CAND AT STONEBROCE HOMES
LOT LINE
EXLOT LAT
EXCANENT
124 +27.1 ALLEY BACK OF CURD BATT ост 2023
1300 sT POKE TRUKSLESSION LINE
NOS ACCERE STRIF
EDGE OF PAVZNENT
COLOPMENT LOT
APN 153-071-035
SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
23 100 OT 03 9H83
SCALE IN FEET: 1 - 50° 108 NoTesS
10B N072052 SCALE IN FEET: 1°= 50°
SEE SHEET 27
24 TONES MOVE 8
I STRINBLO
OCTOBER 2023 5TR SUBMITTAL HEET REVISION: PAINE
PAD 1303
PAINI PASSI
NET ENCET
PAD 003
254,0001 Cr
SITE CUT
EARTHWORK SUMMARY PAD 131
ост 2023 1*-50* SCALE
DATA CONDIAL TA UP TO HO KO CY AD INS PAO INT
PAD 1372
CODIROLI VITING CONTOUR
DAD 132
ELENCY OVERLAND DRAINACE
SALINAS, INTICIPATED STALET SLOPE
TOROVINATE SROT SERPATIO
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN TENTATIVE MAP SEE SHEET 25
PROPOSED BOUND LeS
EXISTINO BOUNDARY
& PROBERT PROPERTY GRADING LEGEND
CALIFORNIA
VASE
KEY MAR
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR RA
1.92 5OB N9a00S SCALE IN FEET: 1 - 50°
OF SHESTE
25 SHEST
DATE AX
OCTOBER 2023 5TH SUBMITTAL SHEET REVISONS 10IUX]
+
! SITE FILL
05000 Cr SITE CUT
CK
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
DATK 1'-50* SCALX
FLOOD ZONEX
FLOCOMAT
+
LIMIT OF GRADING
SALINAS, H'
PROSEMATE SPOT ELEVATION
SPLIT DRAININO PADS SEE SHEET + SEE SHEET 24
PADSOXX
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN TENTATIVE MAP 26 GRADING LEGEND
CALIFORNIA HARTNELL FOUNDATION +
LATE DESI LOCOLAN LO TO SAI
+
CHANG EATIN OF OFE NOTES TO CRETANE
SEE SIEST AL! FOR GRADING SECTIONS HARTA
+
+
GRADING NOTES
KEY MAP
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR RA
FOR: SIONTEROGE HOVE!
JURYETORS CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI BATT OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
1'-50°
TENTATIVE MAP scur
SHEET REVISIONS
OPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR FLOOD ZONE A
MANTITY 2e00 cr 2200 ст
GRADING NOTES ALL PROPOSED ORADE EARTHWORK SUMMARY
OBIE SITE CUT STE ALL
- +:
•4-
+- + -
t-
+
7-1
+APNI153+091+017+ HARTNELL FOUNDATION+
+
SEE SHEET 25
PAK (459) 313-0902 NE: (408) 643-0303 CALIFORNIA SALINAS, NOINCERS • PLANNERS • SUALTAS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023 27 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL JOB N92003
RA TENTATIVE MAP
KEY MAP AND EATENINOR OTTEN TO
GRADING NOTES GRADING LEGEND EARTHWORE
PAD XXX PAD SOX A Fi
SEE SHEET 28
→
SEE SHEET 32
44 (sna 1133815
PAD INS PAD INA PAD BAI
PION 9 ERICA 8
SIONa 9
PAD BUS AD 11S.1 PAD ISAT
109
115 114 PAD U72 113 PAD 132.1
TATI
1-1820
PAD 1S4 PAD 134.7
STREET HOLLO
AD 130x AD 130: PAD 12»
RENT DIPUBLICT
SEE SHEET 24
ADITI AD 1281
Halle 187
HONES
CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
ANOTHERKS LANNERS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY BATT OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 28
TENTATIVE MAP 1*-50*
HEET REVISIONS DATE: MX |
KEY MAR VORONIMATE PID MIEVATON SLIT DRAINING PADS APRONMATE SPOT ELETATION INTICTPATED STREET SLOPE PROPOSED MINOR CONTER PROPOSED ALUOR CONTOUX 176,000 CY 254,000 CY
GRADING LEGEND EARTHWORK SUMMARY HIT EXORC SCALE IN FEET: 1°= 50° TE CUT
SEE SHEET 29
APN 151-091-014 SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SEE SHEET 33 SEE SHEET 27
CAS TRIED FREERRARY CRASN PLAN COS
1b2
F0В N072003 SCALE IN FEET: 1"- 50*
SEE SHEET 34
280
284 283
- *
OCTOBER 2023 5TH SUBMITTAL
2001 cr YAD INS
BY CX 406000 Cr
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
BATE
s0ve C
REIGNE 215
0.000 ст CELOTE
FOR: StONTEROGE HONES.
SCHOOL DISTRICT
warn in games UNION HIGH SALINAS DOL DISTRICT
TETA ONTOE APN 151-091-014 UNION HIGH NAS
CODIROLI 151-091-014
ENOELAND DEARLACE STREET DO (PUBLIC)
UNTICIPATED STREET SLOPE
SALINAS,
SLOPE
HOOLATE NOT BEATIN
TE IT BRAINA RAR SEE SHEET 28
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN TENTATIVE MAP APPROSCMATE PAD FLEVATION PAD XXXX SEE SHEET 30
DESTINO BOUNDARY
& PROBERT PROPERTY GRADING LEGEND
CALIFORNIA
YEE SHEET ALI POR GRADING SECTION
GRADING NOTES
KEY MAP
HARTNELL FOUNDATION
APN 153-091-017
1013-0300 PAC (159) 619-0302 • PLANNERS • SUATETONS RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR RA
ENOINEERS CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP
SHEET REVISIONS
KEY MAR CONTCH ROPOSED MINO ROPOSED MUOR CONTOUX IMIT CE GRADIN JUSTINO 175,0201 CY 254000 ev 200 c
GRADING NOTE: GRADING LEGEND CALE IN FEET: 1*- 50
PAD XXXX UTE CUT
APN 153-091-010 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
6:
A0149 i
FAD 123
SEE SHEET 26 PISTREET DO IUBLIC 48108°
97867-9
SIONA B
SEE SHEET 29
FOR: STONTEROGE HOMES.
FAR (859) B1S-0302 -0900 CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
MOINEERS •PLANNER • SURYCTORS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 309 Nºт200а
TENTATIVE MAP
ATEMENT OR OTTEN RICE TO UVRONMATE SPOT ELEVATION ANTICTPATED STREET SLOM ELENCY OVERLAND DRASADE PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MUDE CONTOUR
KEY MAP
31.00C 001
GRADING NOTES GRADING LEGEND CALE IN FEET: 1°= 50°
PAD XXXX DIDET SITE CUT STE TILL
SEE SHEET 32
- ET
92E1 0va
44 KITOVE
SEE SHEET 36
grace E Move 8
THE ONE
MOVE N
DAD 1SE PAD1113
111 110 PAD 1354
44 SEE SHEET 27
APN 153-091-011 ALISAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
127.3
2€
HE (403) Be-0300 FAT B00.
KVIMLERS• PLANNERS • SURYCYOR CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
OCT 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 RIA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 32 308 graseS TENTATIVE MAP 1'-50* 10 an i
HEET REVISIONS
KEY MAP AVONTE ONESE ANTICTPATED STREET SLOPE ELECENCY OTEELAND DRABLAGE mobo brian PROPOSED MUOR CONTOUR LIMIT CF GRADDAD
SOPS STANTITY
GRADING NOTES GRADING LEGEND EARTHWORK SUMMARY NET BART 24012 CALE IN FEET: 1"- 50° I=C
SEE SHEET 33
SEE SHEET 37
SEE SHEET 36
SEE SHEET 27
9114-
0rten2111332l5
vat era 2
T00 5
Caine Y
3348088
man 8
PAO SA
SEE SHEET 31
HOLUX- EE
SEE SHEET 28 SEE SHEET 29
24 STALET EAPURIC E PADIEN PAD 1289 CHATANOS, 2050-99 S00)0
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
KEY MAP
APN 151-091-014
SALINAS UNION HIGH GRADING NOTES
SCHOOL DISTRICT ALME PERDE PELAMAR AND NECTARY
SEE SHEET AL! POR GRADING SECTIOND
PAD INI
GRADING LEGEND & PROBERT PROPERTY
PAD XXXX PROSTATE PAD ELEVATION
20 133HS 33S PLIT DRADING
'SVNIS
® PAD 129.7
COCSED MENC
10.000 ст
BAD 12AJ
5202 190
2012)
(ANTITY
Exnibit
33 SEE SHEET 38
SCALE IN FEET: 1'= 50' 509 N0720s3
34. SEE SHEET 29 SEE SHEET 30
BAD 1293 BAD 123 230
PAD 1347 SURVEYORS
PAD 1352
RA RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
24 SATANLE
RAD 127A PAD IZAI
APN: 153-091-010 KEY MAP
HARTNELL: FOUNDATION
PAD 13X
291 GRADING NOTES
PAD 15.A
I AL
292
PAD 1250
*
NO 13»
10 170
CALIFORNIA
PAD 122%
293 MAP
SEE SHEET 33 TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY 338
PAD 1223
310
PAD 1221 SALINAS,
311
PAD ELI
MAD IND
INDO
REGRAN
OCT 2023
357
PAD 1223 SITE CUT 07600• cr
358
377
PAD131E
330 316
PAD INS
359
101 x= MAD 122• SHEET REVISIONS 5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023 PAD 11S3 BAD INT
PAD 1214
210
BAD 111N
DATE MK
319
PAD 1122
34 SEE SHEET 39
SE
459) 313-0302 CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL co
RA 1'=50*
TENTATIVE MAP mr cx
JRBANCE WITHIN FUTURE
26 POREED MINOR CONTOLT CAMerA MAOR CONTOUR
KEY MAP PROPOSED MONDAY DIT DRAPING PADE VIETNE CONTOUR ! SEE SHEET AMI FOR GRADINO SECTION SLORE SCALE IN FEET: 1'- 50
GRADING NOTES GRADING LEGEND FARTHWORK SUMMARY
TE CUT i.
PAD XXXX PAD ACK
SEE SHEET 36
PAD U2S PAD BLA PAD LAS Роті В
1010 3
PADDLE PAD INS
1012109
MD12 88
TADIN: 9
PAD125 g
PAD120 g
1302
AD 1330
PARTIT AD 1219 MORIS
SEE SHEET 31
146 MADI 143
LANNERS • SURVEYORS CALIFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023- RIA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 500 072083)
1'-50*
TENTATIVE MAP
D 180.000 CL
APROXIMATE PAD ELEVATION ANTICTPATED STAEET SLOPE O MINOR GONTYAT
KEY MAP PROPOSED SCENDLES ORADIN ARY
UANTITY 176,000 cr e54000 es
GRADING NOTES ADRONE BARENENT OR OTHER
DEDE
SEE SHEET 37
EAST BORINDA
SEE SHEET 32
2-4
1201002 2
PAD 130T PAD INS MAD 32
100 g
MADISO PADDA, B
PAD 1213
SEE SHEET
MADIS PAD ISA MAD ST
1AD02 Y PAD130S
SEE SHEET 35
LE
FOR STONTEROGE HONES.
10000005) 0-030 CALIFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
ENGINEERS • PLANNER: OCTOBER 2023
CODIROL & PROBERT PROPERTY 37
RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 508 N9050
TENTATIVE MAP SHEET REVISIONS
KEY MAP OPOSED BOUNDARY PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
FLIT DRAININ LOCOZONE X 1760000 CY co
GRADING NOTES GRADING LEGENI H'
SEE SHEET 38
TREET AN FUNER
ADI%
413 PAD 1958 PAD 13AS PAD INE PAD 123x
417 418 PAD 1215
11 419 420
410 PAD IS42 408 PAD 1340 PAD 123x
PAD 123»
STREETSI
1I BETAMBLO
Tao:
SEE SHEET 32 HAST BORONDA RD (UBLIC)
SEE SHEET 36
8E
FAT 019-0305 FOR: SIONCERDGE NOVES
CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
1-50
MAP TENTATIVE
SHEET REVISIONS
PPLICANT
KEY MAP ALONG ASIAN OR ONE RIGHT TO CONTRACTI STO SOLARY SPLIT DRAINING PADE AIPRONOMATE SPOT ELEVATION GRADING NOTES 1 ALL PROPOSED GRADE: EARTHWORK SUMMARY SCALE IN FEET: 1 - 50° -240— SITE CUT
SEE SHEET 39
0. 2
PAD 1210 388 PAD S00T
392 PAD 1123
PAD 1121
PADIATE PAD 1152-
MD 130s PAD 119% ZAD (EX
SEE SHEET 34
423
STREE LAN PUBLIC
APN 153-071-034 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
SEE SHEET 33
STREET MA (FEBLIC)
PAINS ฿
SEE SHEET 37
bE
P4019
362 APN 153-091-010
PAD IRE
HARTNELL FOUNDATION
2AD1107
RA RUGGER SENATOR
365
KEY MAP
PAD 107,1
SEE SHEET 38 = SEE SEET KALI FOR CRADON SECTICA
AD MEO C
PAD HES
PA013
381
SADIES DAD 1002
CALIFORNIA
1731 GRADING LEGEND
391
PROPOSED SENDAT
44 TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
PADXXXX APPROATMATE PAD ILEVATION
390 IT DEARTS PAD
APPROXTMATE SPOT ELEVATION
348 SALINAS,
388
PAD 3003 PAD I0KS HOSTING CONTOUR
345 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PAD 1030:
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
LIMIT OF GRADENO
FLOOD ZONE A
ART CARONG PARENT
LOODZONE X
1'=50° ост 2023
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
Try
APN 153-071-035
SCAGLIOTTI,-PURA
HEET REVISSONS 5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023
SHEET
39 FOR NO
SCALE IN FEET: 1 = 50°
Oh
coss caMd ROGE HONT:
SURVEYORS CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
PONEER JENSENAZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 RA SECTIONS GRADING 5TH SUBMITTAL 40 JOn No.ss
TENTATIVE MAP NONE
SHEET REVISIONS
GRADING SECTIO GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION NO SCALE • =
GRADING SECTION "RADING SECTION ( GRADING SECTION GRADINO SECTION GRADING SECTION ORADNO SECTION e GRADING SECTIO! GRADING SECTIO GRADING SECTIO: GRADINO SECTIO ПH9!
HONES
CALIFORNIA SALIAS,
RUGGER JENSEN AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY BATT OCTOBER 2023 41 5TH SUBMITTAL 83
GRADING SECTIONS
RA TENTATIVE MAP HEET REVISIONS
GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION
GRADING.
--- 7.
GRADING SECTION GRADING SECTION
BEROSE HONES
IRVEYORS CALIFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR OCTOBER 2023
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY DATE
RA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 42 Or e3 SHEETS CROPION GOE TENTATIVE MAP 1'-50*
SHEET REVISIONS DATE: MK
KEY MAP ITILITY NOTES
VATIA
SEE SHEET 43
SEE SHEET 44
APN 211-013-012 NATIVIDAD ROAD, SALINAS, LLC 10330.0
APN 153-091-001 CHRISTENSEN
CALIFORNIA SALINAS. ост 2023
CHOIRLERS PLANNERS BYAYEVAB
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY BATE OCTOBER 2023 43 PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 308 N072003
RA 1'-30*
TENTATIVE MAP SCULE SHEET REVISIONS
0 O
<EY MAP UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
ENDAR-
SCALE IN FEET 1% 50%
APN 153-091-017 HARTNELL FOUNDATION NOT A PATT
105%14 23133
SEE SHEET 45
STRELT CURLIC)
APN 211-013-012 NATIVIDAD ROAD, SALINAS, LLC
18 30 3-889
SEE SHEET 42
CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI DATE OCTOBER 2023 RA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 44
1'-50*
TENTATIVE MAP
SHEET REVISIONS
0 O
SEE SHEET 45
SEE SHEET 49
xn4133383S
sio
15 2200
STRETTO PUNICI
SEE SHEET 48
APN 153-091-001 CHRISTENSEN
UNAISIESE
APN 153-091-005 CHRISTENSEN
APN 153-
HARTNELL
RIA UGGERI-JENSEN-AZAF
KEY MAP
20342 UTILITY NOTES
16242
SATE MOSULL I CANED AND
CALFORNIA
SUES BOUT TELL HOPE AND KAS IOA CITY CE SALINA
SEE SHEET 44 SEE SHEET 48 TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY
UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
010 54. SALINAS,
11x FUTURE SUHSD
MIDDLE SCHOOL
(NOT A PART) вистакамат STCNTESOEE MONTE
24-73842
209-94222
CATE ост 2023
SANTANAX
JEET NEVERONS
S3(E57
45 SEE SHEET 50
SCALE IN FEET: 1% 50° 108 PresS
9 ti
• MONE-
SURVEYORS CAUFORNIA SALINAS, OCT 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- RA RELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 46
1-50*
ENTATIVE MAI
cuz BOLET ROVISIONS DATE
ARE MR AD HILL, COMED.
KEY MAP UTILITY NOTES D05012112203
SEE SHEET 47
155E:
APN 153-091-010 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
SEE SHEET 51
33t
210
0:x.(8022
APN 153-091-017 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
- COMET TO
215
NOVA ARE
SEE SHEET 50
APN 153-091-017 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
FUTURE SUHSD MIDDLE SCHOOL (NOT A PART)
SEE SHEET 45
STONEBROGE HONES
CALFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY 47 07 g3 SURE
PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 1'-30°
RIA TENTATIVE MAP SINET REVISIONS DATE XX
DO
ITILITY NOTES NILYANON SCALE IN FEET: 1'- 50°
ROPOSET
10430)
SEE SHEET 51
227
APN 153-091-010 HARTNELL. FOUNDATION
SEE SHEET 46
Jaluxe
HOKE: (409) E15-0300 FAX: (400) 018-0302 MONTS
SURVEYORS CALIFORNIA SALINAS,
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- RIA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 48 202 NO
TENTATIVE MAP 1'-50°
BAlz
MAID AND
VISTING
KEY MAP UTILITY NOTES ITILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
55*> Cm•
SEE SHEET 49
125: 120
12: 1211
103: 102|501 | 1000 00
135 SEE SHEET S3
кайя
*VIA MATH
SEE SHEET 44 SIT LITAL
151
FUTURE SUHSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (NOT A PART)
53 3+209
APN 153-091-005 (A) 080M512
-ley
CHRISTENSEN
4321-2011
bti
CAUFORNIA SAUNAS, ост 2023
SURVEYORS NOUNCER • PLANATAS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY CODIROLI OCTOBER 2023 49 PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 508 0.
RIA 1°-50°
TENTATIVE MAP
DO
150
KEY MAP UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS 'HI!
TIN
SCALE IN FECT T- S38
SEE SHEET 50
SEE SHEET 54
SEE SHEET 45
SEE SHEET 53
*
#
КРАММВИК ЗБОЧА 121125130|127 137130133 030133(133130 130)12 с 513-200
121) 122|123
SEE SHEET 48
TONEBROCE HONE:
ENOINECAS • PLANNERS • SURYEYOR, CAUFORNIA SAUNAS, ост 2023 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY MATE OCTOBER 2023 RIA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP 1*-50*
SHEET REVISIONS
KEY MAP MILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS ATTART SEVER MANSOLE SCALE IN FEET: 1". 50"
SEE SHEET 51
SHE AMALIE
SEE SHEET 55
294424
SEE SHEET 46
255
SHEET 54
SEE SHEET 45
SEE SHEET 49
CAUFORNIA SAUNAS,
CODIROLI BATT OCTOBER 2023
RUGGERI JENSEN-AZAR & PROBERT PROPERTY
PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP SNEET NEVISIONS DATE KKI|
0 O
UTILITY NOTES RAN KAY TEN ASSE AN TI TV1 FORND A ARRREVATONS Il SCALE IN FEET: 1% 50° • 3 - 1k
APN 153-091-010 HARTNELL FOUNDATION
SEE SHEET 56
KEIS
555
15553
375
377
001a32)337215
204
90183-
SIKEPT RUPUBLICE
215
SEE SHEET 46
THAT A210LL
SEE SHEET 50
179
JOR: STOMERBRGE HONES
JURYKYORS CAUFORNIA SALINAS,
UCT 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- RA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 1'-50* 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP or 03
BHKET REVISIONS DATE 10
0 O
KEY MAP UNTART SOVIK HOMELE
LONDE: 10: DeNT
GENERAL NOTES: SCALE IN FEET: 1=50
*3-11=1=8x>C=•
BROTUKAN
SEE SHEET 53
Ical
300820862
1(00100 30M12 133
STREET PRICH
211
Coom:
162
SEE SHEET 48
-SEE ABOVE MATCHLINE-
129-716472
BELOR MATCHL!
TOIUX- Es
CAROT CA 19020 CAUFORNIA SALINAS,
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 53 303 sTass
PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
RA 1-50°
TENTATIVE MAP Vr 1 SHELT NEVISONS" DATE NK
MISTING 0 O
(EY MAP. NOTARY SCHO
LADA SOME IN FEET: 1- 50
SEE SHEET 54
----
SEE SHEET 49
100|120 171 172|173 17x| 177 | 17%
1F135/1:0/155/152/131|/30/125
SEE SHEET 48 STREET FORE
136
M2621 157
SEETLIUALSC
55250
SEE SHEET 52
its
BRIOCE HONES
CALIFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY RATE OCTOBER 2023 54 0703 SHOETS
RA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN STH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP 1-30*
SCALE SHEET RAVIONS
SISTINE 0 O
"Ч!! HENDRA MATARY SETEX MUSTICE
SEE SHEET 55
- 12520
APN 153-071-034 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
8(400)
130030001201
SEE SHEET 50 305:390
270
242
44205
W982
SEE SHEET 49
SEE SHEET 53
PHONE (100) 840-0305 CAUFORNIA SALINAS,
SURVEYORS ENGINCERS • PLANNERS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- 072003 PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
1-30'
TENTATIVE MAP DET REVISION:
0 O
KEY MAP p'!! ANTIARY SENTA PACE MAN
TURNDRAN
SEE SHEET 56
20a1
2g-9-828- 5-3-4
SEE SHEET 51
APN 153-071-035 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
STALET DO ITALIS
109211
215%
SEE SHEET 50 APN 153-071-034 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
300(20)
SEE SHEET 54
199
ОНЕ ЗЕКО НОТ
CALFORNIA SALINAS,
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 56
RA PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE MAP
SHEET REVISORS
0 O
KEY MAP UTILITY LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS 114 SANTARY SOMATORE RUN MIX CATARAN APN 153-091-010 FOUNDATION
HARTNELL
3.31 APN 153-071-035 SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
45 Do can STREET VINEE LAVE 10%
380
15200
NF1141
SEE SHEET 55
RIA RUCCERLAENSENAZAR
LEGEND
BAON WATERDACO BOUNDARY
SUA NUMDER
- DRANCE MANAGED AREA (OMA POUNDARY
* POTENTAL LOCATION OF STRUNATE ARETREATHENT FACILITY
DA PARCERED TO TREAT AND RETAN STORWANTER WIN ME
CAUFORNIA
TENTATIVE MAP STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY DMA D27- SALINAS,
DMA D7 OMA D29
OMA D30
OMA D17)
DMA D9) 1'-200*
OMA D15:
OMA D16
OMA D19
5TH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023-
DMA D20
57 SCALE IN FEET: 1'- 200 072063
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN NOTES: MDTH VARIES, SEE PLAN ECOME CRATE OOPLOY SLY IR TIL TIMOLD DETERINATION SQUADRIET, THE IRONET WILL DE SLEET TO BIRMINT I RECURENT:, RIGUIREMENT 1, * 2IGURINENT L - 12° PONDING DOPT
17 POMONG DIPTE
AMEN AYLONS FAX: (409) 016-0302
10. S0 OUTS RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
RESTRARIST& SOR LAND USE MAN
GENERAL NOTES:
IYPICAL BIORETENTION BASIN DETAIL TYPICAL BASIN OUTLET STRUCTURE STORATE FACILES SERE DESCED MTHE CITY OF SALLS STORATE DEVELT STAND IS (S) PR NEW AND LONELINT PRO/ACTS, DATED OCTOBER 3050.
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TABLE 95% RAINFALL DEPTH RUNOFF RETENTION VOLUME & POTENTIAL PRETREATMENT = In MutA
515
sunshine 12000N
mal importas tee - 3317240 % мон0 227,40% пим!
tator Marasoment Zone- CAUIFORNIA
TENTATIVE MAP STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS CODIROL & PROBERT PROPERTY !!!
Middlesseidesidentistess SALINAS,
HRESHOLD DETERMINATION SPREADSHEET
Ments Ros/ and Hange out pa. al Ares Socific Pan EX803500=E830E POTENTIAL STORMWATER PRETREAIMENT AT STREET Mxed-oce
8485005 1°
mpen 1090 02
perious Aren
master Are
New Impervous
ves is Imperiou
resplaceton NONE
SLIN 1462319| 2012231020901 4027222110000
510177 r
507 к
11472 4'
& VIL VOSTOL CURE MITH CUTIER PAL
PRELIMINARY PEAK FLOW MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS STORE DRAK CATE DAN EEEE STH SUBMITTAL OCTOBER 2023
5430
Icemalis 13.30 18.60
132432
the amlect in an Utter Sustalestity Ares) No 10 pear 05. perious Area for Treatment Design:
merior Ars to Ruself Reducken
milk ms to Bot Minan 5,191,771.15 n POTENTIAL STORMWATER BRETREATMENT AT ALLEY 58 509 Nо..
bs
NICE (105) BS-0500 FAR (400) 046-0332 CALFORNIA SALINAS.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY 59
STORMWATER BASIN WEST AS SHOWN J0B NO.
RA TENTATIVE MAP
SHEE POLONE DATE: KK
WATERSHED MAP WATERSHED MAP
(nt)
leged cos Ive 9s
EAST BORONDA RD (PUBLIC)
BASIN A SCALE: 15-30 BASIN B SCALE: 1-30° BASING
LEVEL FLOW SPREADING STRUCTURS- "STREETE (PUBLIC) *
109
A (400) 210-0232
CAUFORNIA SALINAS,
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023-
RA STORMWATER BASIN EAST 5TH SUBMITTAL
AS SHORN
TENTATIVE MAP
SHEET REVERONS
WATERSHED MAP
MERLOW INLET
STREET X (PUBLIC)
LO STAIROL MONS
(109) 843-030 SALINAS,
CALFORNIA XT 2023
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023- REA PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC CALMING 5TH SUBMITTAL on Norades
TENTATIVE MAP SKEET FIVESONS
SCALE IN FEET: 1°- 200
= 200
CALORNIA SALINAS, XT 2023
CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY 62
CUMULATIVE NOISE LEVELS or 83
TENTATIVE AP
SHORET REVISIONS
NORSE CONTOUR (DO, PROPOSED DOUNDREY " NETHE NOTCUPS ARE MEATURED PROSE THE CENTERLINE NOINEERS • PLANNERS & SURVETOR CALFORNIA SALINAS, ост 2023 CODIROLI & PROBERT PROPERTY OCTOBER 2023 O72оeg
RUGGERI JENSEN-AZAR 63
PHASING PLAN 5TH SUBMITTAL 203 но
NONE
RIA TENTATIVE MAP TOTET REVISIONS
(aces)
PHASE LINE MIASE NIABER NOTES SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DURING Numberet PHASING LEGEND TE nOON AND MAY BE SURTHER MIASED INTE PHASING PLAN SUMMARY TABLE
NOT A PART
NOT A PART
149F
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4C0E-9E33-97B9C3809991 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 Affordable Housing Plan
Stonebridge Bridge Homes
Codirolli & Probert Property
Date: April 5, 2024
Project Description: This development is in the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP) (APN 153- 091-015-000) and the closest cross street to the parcel is the Hemingway Drive and Boronda Road intersection. This Tentative Map is planned for approximately 487 for sale Single family homes, Townhomes, Lane Homes, and Green Court Dwellings. There wil also be approximately 615 Courtyard Condominiums, Apartments
Apartments/Condominiums and approximately 572 for
Condominiums, Apartments and Courtyard Apartments. This should generate approximately 134 for sale Moderate and Work Force Inclusionary units. The single-family homes will range between 1,378 square feet three-bedroom, two bath homes to 2,650 square feet 5- bedroom 3 bath homes. Lots range from 3,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Each home will have a two-car detached or attached garage.
Apartments will range from 800 Square feet to 1,400 square feet one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom units. Condominiums will range from 1,100 square feet to 1,550 square feet two, three and maybe four-bedroom units with two baths. Townhouses will be three bedroom - two and a half bathrooms approximately 1550 square feet.
There will be a variety of plans offered, each one with different floor plans and exteriors. Stonebridge Homes has yet to complete the designs for any of the units described above, which makes it difficult to be precise this early in the entitlement process. There will be multiple subdivision maps over the 20 plus years to build this development. Each subdivision map will include a more precise count of units to be built of market rate and inclusionary units. Each map will be more precise as to how many Townhomes, Condominiums and Apartments are for sale or for rent. The developer will work with the City of Salinas as these subdivision plans are being finalized to adjust the number of units to be included in the Inclusionary Program or the in-lieu fees to be paid by the developer.
Entitlement App. Date: 04/08/2021
Project Address(es): TBD
Project APN(s): 153-091-015-000
Exhibit 165
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4C0E-9E33-97B9C3809991 Owner(s): East Boronda LLC
Developer(s): Stonebridge Homes Inc.
Hugh Walker & Bob Bikle
1540 Constitution Boulevard
Salinas, CA 93905
Project Link To: TM 2021-001 / CASP
Affordability Restriction: 30 Year Affordability (Inclusionary) Inclusionary Option: Option 1 (Tentative Map estimates 1674 units to be built) Inclusionary Restricted
Units: 335 Units
Inclusionary
Restricted Unit Mix: 67 Very Low Income (All rental units) (Pay rental impact fee / Section 8 restricted units apply) 134 Low Income (All rental units)
(Pay rental impact fee / Section 8 restricted units apply) 67 Moderate Income (All for sale units)
67 Workforce Income (All for sale units)
Fee Selection: Rental Housing Impact Fee on Rental Units (As of July 1, 2023, the fee $2.50 per sq. ft. of gross floor area'). This fee will be subject to change on annual basis based on the City of Salinas Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services.
In-Lieu Impact Fee on For-Sale Units (As of July 1, 2023, the fee $14.75 per sq. ft. of gross floor area'). This fee will be subject to change on annual basis based on the City of Salinas Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services.
Density Bonus Request: TBD
Density Bonus Restricted
Units: TBD
Density Bonus
Restricted Unit Mix: TBD
Density Bonus
Concessions Requested: TBD
1 Gross floor area" is as defined in Municipal Code Section 37.10.300 under "Floor area, gross." DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4COE-9E33-97B9C3809991 Other Affordable There may be opportunities to work with a non-profit. Too early in the Alternative: process to determine.
Project Units: The table below shows the unit distribution on the project.
Affordable Housing Plan
Stonebridge Bridge Homes / Codirolli & Probert Property 11/27/2023
Parcel Zoning Proposed Housing Proposed Lot Unit Type Phases of ID SFH and Type Unit Description Parcels
Townhomes Multi Family, Average or Proposed Providing
- for Condo's and Multi inclusionary Affordable
Sale Courtyard Family, location for Housing
Units Condo's sale - Option
and #1, Subject
Courtyard to change
Units per
parcel
107 NE-A 5 medium to Market Rate
large lots
108 NE-A 10 medium to Market Rate
large lots
109 NE-A 4 medium to Market Rate
large lots
110 NE-A 6 medium to Market Rate
large lots
111/319 NE-A 17 medium to Market Rate
large lots
112 NE-A 7 medium to Market Rate
large lots
113/213 NE-A 6 medium to Market Rate
large lots
119 NE-A 13 medium to Market Rate
large lots
124 NE-A medium to Market Rate
large lots
114 NE-B 12 medium to Market Rate
large lots
115 NE-B 6 medium to Market Rate
large lots
128 NE-B 5 medium to Market Rate
large lots
129 NE-B 5 medium to Market Rate
large lots
118 NE-B 13 medium to Market Rate
large lots
120 NE-B 13 medium to Market Rate
large lots
121 NE-B 16 medium to Market Rate
large lots
122 NE-B 8 medium to Market Rate
large lots
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4COE-9E33-97B9C3809991 123 NE-B 8 medium to Market Rate
large lots
125/253 NE-B 11 medium to Market Rate
large lots
116 NG-A 19 Courtyard 8 23 medium to Market Rate
large lots
4 medium to Workforce
large lots
117 NG-A 16 Courtyard 8 20 medium to Market Rate
large lots
4 medium to Workforce
large lots
13 medium to Market Rate
large lots
7 medium to Market Rate
large lots
7 medium to Market Rate
large lots
10 Inclusionary - 1
Workforce
11 3 Inclusionary - 1
Workforce
10 Courtyard 8 3 Inclusionary - 3
Workforce
7 2 Inclusionary - 5
Workforce
9 3 Workforce 5
Market Rate
Market Rate
8 2 Inclusionary - 2
Workforce
9 3 Inclusionary - 2
Workforce
29 4 Inclusionary - 2
Workforce
44 7 Inclusionary - 6
Workforce
16 5 Inclusionary - 6
Workforce
9 4 Inclusionary - 1
Workforce
9 3 Inclusionary - 3
Workforce
8 Courtyard 24 4 Inclusionary - 3
Workforce
9 3 Inclusionary - 3
Workforce
8 Courtyard 8 -Market Rate 5
8 Courtyard 8 -Market Rate 5
20 Inclusionary - 5
Workforce
TBD 28 9 Inclusionary - 2
Workforce
9 Courtyard 8 Market Rate
81 Market Rate 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4COE-9E33-97B9C3809991 Multi 35 Section 8
Family/condo'
154 VC-B Multi 57 Market Rate 1
Family/condo 20 Section 8
155 VC-B Multi 120 Market Rate 2
Family/condo 50 Section 8
156 VC-B Multi 76 Market Rate 3
Family/condo' 35 Section 8
157 VC-B Mitir 137 Market Rate 3
Family/condo' 61 Section 8
158 VC-A Multi 52 Inclusionary - 3
Family/condo' Moderate
159 VC-A Multi 80 10 Inclusionary - 3
Family/condo' Moderate
160 VC-A Multi 146 10 Inclusionary - 5
Family/condo' Moderate
161 VC-A Multi 149 10 Inclusionary - 5
Family/condo' Moderate
162 VC-A Multi 62 10 Inclusionary - 5
Family/condo' Moderate
176 VC-A 83 Retail
Family/condo
177 VC-A 44 Inclusionary - 1
Family/condo' Moderate
TOTALS 487 1187 335
Est. 615 For Sale Inclusionary Moderate - 67 Section 8 Voucher Units - 201 Est. 615 For Sale Inclusionary Workforce - 67
Unit Placement: Units offered to Inclusionary Housing participants shall represent an equitable distribution of unit types and bedroom mix in the overall development. Every phase within the development that includes residential units should include affordable housing units, either for-sale or for-rent units. See Exhibit A for more details.
Phasing: There will be multiple Subdivision Maps over a twenty year build out of the units. There will be sales offices offering the different models with upgrades. A deposit will be taken, and the homes will start construction after the prospective buyers have loan approval. Final location of For Sale Inclusionary Houses will be submitted with each Subdivision Map and Final Map. It's too early in the process to know what Condominium and Apartment units will be for sale or be for rent. The map attached shows potential locations for Inclusionary homes. It's impossible to be exact on a DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4COE-9E33-97B9C3809991 project that will last twenty plus years. None of the units for the CASP have been designed at this time. See Exhibit A for more details.
Construction Schedule: Once the Tentative Map is approved, work on the first Subdivision Map will begin as well as the house plans and multi-family/condominium product The pace of construction is dictated by the pace of sales which is a result of the housing market and interest rates. There is no reliable estimate as to how the pace of construction will proceed for the CASP Area. There is uncertainty about a start date or first units to be delivered. There are too many issues/factors that are out of the developer's control at this specific Follow-up Items: Items to be completed prior to issuance of the Building Permit:
• This Affordable Housing Plan is compliant with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and will be re-evaluated at each phase of this subdivision to ensure continued compliance with the Ordinance. • An Affordable Housing Agreement will be recorded on each lot subject to the Housing Inclusionary Ordinance at each of the different phases of the subdivision (Recorded Covenant).
Items to be completed prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (CofO):
Marketing Plan
• Management Plan
• Payment of Rental Impact Fee
• Calculation of Unit Income and Rent Limits per the Inclusionary Housing Program
• Calculation of Unit Income and Rent Limits per the Density Bonus Program (if applicable)
• Proof that the designated affordable rental units at each of the different phases of the subdivision have been offered to the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey for the Section 8 Program so long as the program exist.
- DocuSigned by:
Hush Walker 4/5/2024 | 1:49 PM PDT
-8073E0F02BF041C..
Hugh Walker Date
Authorized Owner/Project Representative
- DocuSigned by:
Francisco Brrambila 4/5/2024 | 1:10 PM PDT
-63BA7CFA2A00480
Francisco Brambila, Acting Planning Manager Date
Community Development Department
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F8EE3E3-ADBD-4C0E-9E33-97B9C3809991 Exhibit A
NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE NO, AND UTER USES AS ACCORDANZ WITHI
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN MAP
Stonebridge Bridge Homes
Codirolli & Probert Property
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL - C
VITE PANELY OUT ANY FLEXA HARD USE AND THE LESS ACARANCE
VILLAN ENA DUSE AND OFTER USES IN ACOACE WITH CAPTARLE M
PUBLIC FACILITY
PARKS
OPEN SPACE
* INDICATES AN & CONDO UNIT COURTYARD PRODUCT
HOUSING TYPE
WORKFORCE HOUSING
160
Phase 5
MODERATE HOUSING
SECTION 8 HOUSING
TOTAL UNITS IN PARCEL
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN PARCEL
158
125
(NOT A PART)
113
124
169
156
Phase 3 Phase 4
119
(NOT A PART)
319
165
Phase 2
16 120
110
130 Phase 6
170
115 Phase 1
114
112
152
SEE NOTEB
City of Salinas
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING (PW) • 65 West Alisal Street • Salinas, California
SALINAS
RICH IN LAND | RICH IN VALUES Phone: (831) 758-7251 • www.cityofsalinas.org
ENGINEERING REVIEW
DATE: 11/22/2023 PURPOSE: TM2021-001 & SPA2023-001
PLANNER: Jill Miller LOCATION: CASP
OWNER/APPLICANT: Stonebridge Homes/ REVIEWER: Adriana Robles, PE, CFM Codiroli Family Trust and Probert Family Trust City Engineer DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Major subdivision of three parcels (APN 153-091-022, 153-091- 023, 153-091-024) totaling 186.94 ac into 427 residential lots, commercial uses, mixed-use, public parks and open space along with associated site improvements consistent with the Central Area Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions
SWDS CATEGORY: Priority Project (>10 lot subdivision)
SWDS THRESHOLD: Requirements 1-4 and 100-yr peak
NDPES CATEGORY: High Priority (SWPPP)
REVIEW FEES: Prior to approval, applicant shall provide payment for review of tentative map pursuant to the Council-approved fee schedule. Invoice attached.
Notice: The Conditions of Approval for this Site Plan Review include certain fees and development requirements.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d)(1), this hereby constitutes written notice stating the amount of said fees and describing the development requirements. The applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day appeal period in which he/she/they may protest these fees and development requirements, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a), begins on the date the office land use permit is approved. If applicant files a written protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, he/she/they will be legally barred from challenging such fees and/or requirements at a later date.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE MAP: The developer has submitted a Tentative Map to create 427 lots. The tentative map has been found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 31 of the Salinas Municipal Code (SMC) with the following exemption.
1. Tentative Map - Applicant is requesting a waiver from SMC Section 31-909(b). Pursuant to SMC Section 31-401.3(p), the design has been found to provide the required right of way. Prior to approval of a final map, applicant shall confirm the proposed right of way at the intersections provides the required space to incorporate all right of way improvements or the required easement shall be provided.
2. Prior to approval of a Final Map, lands shown to be developed outside of the property lines shall be acquired by the applicant.
3. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall provide proposed street names pursuant to Municipal Code Section 31-401.4(a).
4. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall provide a title report which incorporates all Page | 1
Exhibit
TM2021-001 | Engineer's Report
the lands to be subdivided, easements, covenants and encumbrances.
5. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall pay all map check fees pursuant to the Council- approved fee schedule.
6. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide an engineer's estimate of all the proposed improvements, stamped by a licensed civil engineer.
7. Prior to approval of a Final Map and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 31-1001, the applicant shall sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide surety bonds or cash deposits for Subdivision, Performance and monumentation.
8. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 31-1000.1, applicant shall construction plans for improvements of all offsite improvements, including, but not limited to, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps, storm drainage systems, sanitary sewer systems, water systems, street lighting, fire hydrants, joint trench (gas, telephone, cable tv, City- owned dark fiber conduit, high speed internet), landscaping and irrigation, street signs and street amenities. Joint trench utilities shall be placed underground.
9. The project is proposing onsite and offsite grading that will fill the existing wetlands (north area of development, lands of Joseph P Ferry Trust). Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 37-50.180(h)(1)(G), prior to any site grading, the applicant shall receive authorization/approval to fill the wetland from the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Improvement plans shall clearly identify limits of existing wetlands.
10. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide site specific soils reports that include infiltration testing for any stormwater control measure.
11. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall provide R-values for each of the proposed roadways to confirm the proposed pavement sections provide adequate lifespan of the improvements.
12. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall final Stormwater Control Plans consistent with the most current Stormwater Development Standards and City's NPDES permit.
13. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations stamped by a licensed civil engineer for the sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems.
14. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, , the applicant shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer.
15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide approved improvement plans from any utility company or regulating agency that has authority over the subdivision.
16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall pay all plan review and inspection fees pursuant to the Council-approved fee schedule.
17. Prior to acceptance of any subdivision improvements, applicant shall provide records, video recordings, testing and as-built documentation of all constructed improvements.
18. Prior to acceptance of any subdivision improvements and pursuant to Municipal Code Section 31- 1002.4, applicant shall provide a warranty security for no less than 10% of the total cost of construction of the improvements.
Page | 2
Z: ENGINEERING PWIEng PW - Projects\Future Growth Area - General\CASPITM - Cordiroli and MatsuilCASP TM2021-001 COA docx
CITY OF SALINAS
Planning Division - Community Development
65 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901
SALINAS (831) 758-7206 * (831) 758-7215 Fax
www.ci.salinas.ca.us
RICH IN LAND | RICH IN VALUES
FEES DUE
Project Number: TM2021-001 Description
Address: CASP 466 lots (456 residential)
Invoice Date: 8/9/2023
Fee Description Account Amount
1000.50.5115-56.5080 $12,459.00
NDES TENANTIVE MAP 20+
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $12,459.00
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020 Appendix D:
Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Exhibit 67.
292
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
4.0 PROGRAM
This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Project (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." A FMMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR, some of which were revised after the Draft EIR were prepared. These revisions are shown in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR. All revisions to mitigation measures that were necessary as a result of responding to public comments and incorporating staff-initiated revisions have been incorporated into this FMMRP. The FMMRP also includes mitigation measures which are required by the Final Environmental Impact Report, Salinas General Plan (Cotton Bridges Associates 2002) and the Final Supplement for the Salinas General Plan Final Program EIR (EDAW, 2007).
4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.
The City of Salinas will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the Project.
The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the Project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-1 293
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This page left intentionally blank.
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 294
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.1-2: Project operation Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Prior to approval of tentative maps, conditional Prior to has the potential to cause a use permits or site plan review, the project applicants) shall incorporate the Coy of Salinas approval of violation of an air quality following features into project plans and specifications, as directed by the Development standard contribute City of Salinas: Department contain ase substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation permits or site
Provide traffic calming measures (such as speed bumps, traffic plan review 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 City of Salinas Prior to permits), the project applicants) shall incorporate effective methods to Community approval of facilitate the use of cleaner alternative fuel (e.g., electric vehicles, carpooling, Development development etc.) within the Plan Area. Effective methods may include the installation of Department review alternative fuel (eg. electric) charging stations at locations spaced permits) throughout the Plan Area including but not limited to those specified in this Draft EIR, as applicable, consistent with or better than what is required by the City's Municipal Code and Specific Plan. Additionally, this can be achieved by providing preferential parking for alternatively-powered vehicles, including electric cars, and/or by providing carpool/vanpool parking spaces.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Prior to approval of development review permits), the project applicants) shall incorporate the use of alternative City of Salinas Prior to Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-3 295
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
energy for the residential and mixed use/commercial developments, Community approval of including by implementing alternative energy (e.g. PV solar) building Development development requirements, consistent with or better than, what is required by the City's Department review Municipal Code and State requirements (eg. the 2019 California Solar permits) 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 City of Salinas Prior to the (high-efficiency) indoor water fixtures will be installed throughout the Plan issuance of Area, including for bathroom and kitchen faucets, toilet fixtures, and Development building permits
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 City of Salinas Prior to the Community issuance of
Development building
Department permits
Mitigation Measure 3.1-6: Prior to approval of improvement plans or City of Salinas Prior to development review permits, as applicable, the project applicants) shall Community approval of ensure that pedestrian/bicycle facilities (eg. pedestrian paths, outdoor bike Development improvement racks, etc.) are provided within the Specific Plan Area, in coordination with Department dearlopment and subject to approval by the City of Salinas. The project proponent shall also provide bicycling parking near the entrance to commercial asapipermits, 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 City of Salinas Prior to permits), the project applicants) shall incorporate the following additional approval of Plan Area reauirements, as applicable: Development development Department review
Install secured bicycle storage facilities (bike lockers, cages, interior
4.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 296
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
space, or similar as approved by the City Engineer) at all commercial permit(s) and public facilities with 50 employees or more;
Incorporate park-and-ride lots.
Install Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charge stations at workplace sites with 50 or more employees (10% or more of total available parking spaces, dependent on the existing and anticipated overall electric vehicle fleet mix in Monterey County at time of development); and Install publicly-available dual post Level 2 charge stations within the VC or NG zones, and/or other zones as deemed acceptable by the City of Salinas. (Note: The 'level' of the charging station refers to the voltage that the electric vehicle charger uses. Level 1 charging is your 'ypical traditional home outlet, while level 2 is a 240 Volt Portable Cordset or Wall-mounted Charging Station (2-10 hours charging).
Mitigation Measure 3.1-8: Prior to the approval of individual phases (i.e. Prior to tentative maps, site plan review, etc.), the project applicants) shall develop City of Salinas Community approval of
a reasonably feasible offsite mitigation program that provides funding to individual Development
offset the project-generated air emissions that are still above the Air phases (i.e.
Department tentative maps,
District's operational criteria pollutant thresholds after the adoption of other applicable air quality mitigation measures. The offsite mitigation program is site plan subject to the review and approval of the Air District and the City of Salinas review, etc.) 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
generators/pumps;
Replace combustion school buses with electric school buses within the local community;
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-5 297
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Install adaptive traffic control systems;
Install solar photovoltaic (PV systems.
3.1-3: Project Mitigation Measure 3.1-9: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Salinas Prior to the Community issuance of
construction has the potential to project applicant shall prepare a grading plan subject to review and cause a violation of an air quality Development grading approval by the City. In the event that ground-disturbance exceeds 2.2 acres Department permits standard or per day for initial site preparation activities that involve extensive earth- substantially to an existing or moving activities (e.g., grubbing, excavation, rough grading), and 8.1 acres projected air quality violation Monterey Bay
per day for activities that involve minimal earth-moving (e.g., finish grading), Air Resources the required grading plans shall include the following measures to be District implemented as needed to prevent visible dust emissions:
Water all active construction sites to prevent visible dust emissions.
Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure;
Prohibit grading and earthmoving activities, and cover stock piles, during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);
Limit vehicle speed on construction sites to 15 mph.
Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days;
Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; Maintain at least 1-foot of freeboard in each haul truck; Provide windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects where adjacent to open land;
Cover inactive storage piles;
Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; and/or
Post a publicly visible sign written in English and Spanish which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall be visible to
4.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 298
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). The sign shall be in accordance with MBARD and/or City requirements, as applicable Use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to EPA's second or first-most stringent Tier emission standards (e.g. Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards in 2019), or better; and/or
Further, where reasonably feasible, construction equipment should include the use of alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), propane, electricity or biodiesel.
Impact 3.1-5: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.1-10: Prior to issuance of building permits or City of Salinas Prior to project has the potential for commencing operation of any commercial building/use that would emit toxic issuance of public exposure to toxic air air contaminants (such as gas stations or dry cleaning operations), the Development building project applicant shall, at a minimum, perform prioritization screening in permits or accordance with the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization commencing Guidelines (uly 1990) and the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Monterey Bay operation of Air Resources
Assessment Act. The prioritization screening shall be performed in any commercial accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Air that would emit Toxic "Hot Spots" Program guidance. The prioritization screening shall also toxic air be conducted consistent with the guidance provided by the Monterey Bay Air contaminants Resources District, which will be responsible for determining which facilities (such as gas based on their prioritization screening score, must perform a health risk stations or dry assessment. In determining the need to prepare a health risk assessment, the cleaning Monterey Bay Air Resources District considers the potency, toxicity, quantity, operations) and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors specific to the facility that indicate that it may pose a significant health risk.
If a health risk assessment is warranted for a facility based on its prioritization score, the project applicant shall assess the facilities for the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the applicable thresholds (utilizing an air dispersion modelling program such as AERMOD). As of the time of this writing, the commonly accepted threshold for cancer risk is 10 in a million for carcinogens, and the reference exposure level for non-carcinogens (HI = 1).. Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) have the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-7 299
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
levels that would be considered significant. Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) must incorporate mitigation to reduce the risks from emission of toxic air contaminants to an acceptable level (i.e., to a level that does not exceed the applicable threshold[s]). Potential mitigation includes:
reducing the size of the facility area; rearranging the site to reduce the potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors; and utilizing products that reduce the level of toxic air contaminants, or removal of such products from the operational phase of the project.
Impact 3.1-7: Cumulative impact Implement Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-10. See Mitigation See Mitigation on the region's air quality Measures 3.1-1 Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-8 through 3.1-8
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building City of Salinas Prior to Impact 3.2-2: The proposed issuance of
project has the potential to, permits, the project applicant, assisted by a qualified biologist, shall consult Community directly or indirectly, have a Development grading and/or with the USEWS and CDFW to obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals building substantial adverse effect and authorizations regarding CTS. It is anticipated that the applicant would Department through habitat modifications or permits
need to coordinate with the USFWS and CDFW on any additional survey California reductions, cause populations to needs, beyond the surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already Department of
been performed on this site for this species, during the consultation process. Fish and The surveys, assessments, and genetic testing that has already been Wildlife community, or substantially performed, in addition to any additional survey needs, will inform what, if reduce the number of, or restrict U.S. Fish and
any, take authorization is required from CDFW to comply with CESA.
Consultation with CDFW and the USFWS shall be conducted well in advance Wildlife Service those considered. candidate, of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation- or ground- Qualified sensitive, or special status in disturbing activities. Biologist local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or The regulatory approvals are anticipated to include the need to submit an USFWS - Reptile and Amphibian 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 USEWS 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-
4.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 300
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
treatment activities in areas deemed to be viable CTS habitat.
It is anticipated that compensatory mitigation will be necessary for the loss of aquatic habitat associated with the 0.25-acre agricultural basin located on the east side of Natividad Road, approximately 0.4 miles north of East Boronda Road. At a minimum, the restoration and habitat creation of up to 30 acres along Gabilan Creek and 74 acres along Natividad Creek (net of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the project shall include ponded/basin areas that provide aquatic breeding habitat opportunities for CTS within the Specific Plan Area. The required amount of ponded/basin areas shall not be less than the 0.25 acres which is equivalent to the anticipated habitat loss, but the final calculation of aquatic habitat needed to compensate for that loss shall be determined by the USFWS and/or CDFW through the permit process. Additionally, the replacement aquatic habitat shall be designed with similar characteristics as the known 0.25-acre City of Salinas Prior to
breeding pond including depths of at least five feet, and establishment of Community issuance of submergent and emergent vegetation around the perimeter of the Development grading and/or pond/basin. All submergent and emergent vegetation around the pond/basin Department building sal she om me fist cantino se ensure aparo stenicant vegetation is permits California
Department of
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 CDEW. Wildlife Service
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to California tiger salamander to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with all Avoidance and Minimization Measures imposed by the USFWS and CDEW 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 City of Salinas Prior to hand excavation of burrows using hand-trowels and spades per the Community issuance of Development grading and/or
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-9 301
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
regulatory agency protocols, 3) erecting drift fencing around the work areas Department building if occurring during the migration/breeding season, 4) inspection of drift permits California
by biologist with an ITP every 72 hours during Department of migration/breeding season 5) installation of pit traps to capture CTS Fish and migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to Wildlife construction start and evening after construction ends), 6) relocation of any CTS found immediately to a site designated by the USFWS and CDFW per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
protocol; and 7) post construction report. Any disturbance/decommissioning of the basin that is a known breeding site, shall be performed under the Qualified direction of the USFWS and/or CDEW. The decommissioning of this basin Biologist 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. City of Salinas Prior to Community issuance of
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building Development beading and/or permits, the project applicant, assisted by a qualified biologist, shall consult Department with the USFWS and CDFW to obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals permits and authorizations regarding CRLE. This is anticipated to include the need to California submit an application for incidental take to both the USFWS (Section 7 Department of Fish and
Consultation) and CDFW (2081 incidental take permit). The project Wildlife applicant's qualified biologist shall report the conclusions reached through such consultation to the City's Community Development Director. If either U.S. Fish and USFWS or CDFW determines that an incidental take permit is required, the Wildlife Service 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. Qualified 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 Prior to of any recreational amenities and public facilities required to facilitate the City of Salinas project) along Natividad Creek. Given that the creation/restoration is an issuance of
4.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 302
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
expansion of habitat beyond what exists presently, it is anticipated that there Development grading and/or would be a net increase in CRLF habitat. There is, however, the potential for Department building temporary impacts to CRLF during the creation/restoration effort. The final permits restoration and habitat creation design shall be subject to the approval of the California USFWS and CDFW. Department of
Fish and
Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLE to the extent feasible, the proposed project activities shall be compliant with all Avoidance and Minimization Measures imposed by the USFWS and CDFW during Wildlife Service Construction Activities. Examples of standard avoidance and minimization measures include: 1) conducting environmental education training for all construction personnel, 2) having a biologist with a scientific collecting Burrow sous i a to rowes ansi spa foes perse regulator nd excapration of, 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 CRLE migrating during the rain events with a check twice daily (morning prior to construction start and evening eyer construction ten by the rus and OF 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 reasure le tort to capture and re local a as mand western pon 4 tumes 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 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-11 303
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY TIMING (DATE/INITIALS) CDFW.
Impact 3.2-3: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Building and grading permits and plans issued City of Salinas In conjunction project has the potential to, for development in the project area shall note the following: If construction Communtent with issuance substantiat indiverse have activities occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 - September of building and Department grading
15) then the project proponent shall conduct pre-construction surveys to through habitat modifications or prevent impacts to nesting birds. No more than 15 days prior to the start of permits and reductions, cause populations to Qualified plans
construction a bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to Biologist drop below self-sustaining levels, identify any active nests within the Specific Plan Area, and shall be submitted substantially eliminate to the City. If construction stops for a period of 15 days or more during the California community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict avian breeding season than an additional bird survey shall be conducted. The Department of biologist will conduct a survey in the Specific Plan Area for all special-status Fish and the raren an endas red, rare birds protected by the federal and state ESA, MBTA and CFC. The biologist Wildlife considered candidate, 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 regulations, or by the CDEW or shall be prohibited within the buffer zones until the young have fledged. Nests USEWS - Birds shall be monitored at least twice per week during the nesting season and a report submitted to the City and CDFW monthly.
Impact 3.2-5: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.2-7: Grading and/or building permits and plans City of Salinas In conjunction project has the potential to, issued for development in the project area shall note the following: Community with issuance directly or indirectly, have a Development of building
substantial adverse effect Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat: Any vegetation/ground Department and/or grading through habitat modifications or disturbance to the Gabilan Creek associated with the crossings or permits and reductions, cause populations to restoration should be conducted when woodrats are least likely to Qualified plans drop below self-sustaining levels, Biologist
breed in October through November. No more than 30 days prior to substantially eliminate construction located within 50-feet of Gabilan Creek, a qualified reduce the number of rentale biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Monterey the range of, an endangered, rare dusky-footed woodrat middens. At the discretion of a qualified or threatened species, including biologist, an exclusion buffer shall be established around any those considered candidate, woodrat middens that can be avoided, and these exclusion zones sensitive, or special status in shall be fenced as Environmentally Sensitive Areas to protect the local or regional plans, policies, nest. If a woodrat midden cannot be avoided, potential dismantling regulations, or by the DEW or and relocation strategies shall be developed and presented to the
4.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 304
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
USFWS - Mammals City of Salinas Community Development Department by a qualified biologist for review and/or approval. Potential dismantling and relocation strategies may include hiring a qualified biologist to dismantle the middens by hand for relocation within the restored/created habitat along Gabilan and Natividad Creeks, or outside of the project site as appropriate. If approved by the City, a qualified wildlife biologist may dismantle only middens within the project site that would be disturbed by construction activities. If young are encountered during dismantling of the midden, any removed material may be replaced and a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer would be established around the active midden. The buffer would remain until young are weaned and are able to disperse on their own accord (typically for a period of 14 days). All removed midden substrate would be collected and relocated to suitable woodland habitat outside of the project footprint. Appropriate personal protective equipment (e.g., respirator, gloves, and Tyvek suit) shall be used while dismantling and relocating woodrat nest material to protect against disease carried by rodents (e.g.
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 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 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-13 305
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
the roost. The project applicant shall consult with the qualified biologist in order to determine if a greater buffer is warranted based on the bat species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. The buffer shall stay in effect until all young are determined to be volant (i.e., able to fly and feed independently) by a qualified biologist. Once it is determined that all young are volant (generally by August 1st), passive exclusion devices shall be installed and all bats shall be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is determined by the qualified biologist that all bats have left the roost (minimum of five days), crews shall be allowed to work within the buffer zone. Project Improvement Plans will include this measure as a note in the plans.
City of Salinas Prior to grading
protect as the pretapo lae Community / building
substantial adverse effect on Development permit issuance federally - or state- protected Department in an area that wetlands (including, but not proposed to be disturbed. The creeks are confirmed jurisdictional and would disturb authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, U.S. Army the Gabilan coastal, etc.) through coasted to, mash, ougna diet ROCB-Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters Corps of Creek, removal, filling, hydrological of the State and 401 certification, CDFW-1600 Streambed Alteration Engineers Natividad interruption, or other means Agreement) will be necessary. The irrigation ditches are anticipated to be Creek exempt. If these regulatory agencies concur that these irrigation ditches are Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State and 401 California certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement) will be necessary. At a Department of minimum, the project applicant shall replace on a "no net loss" basis Fish and (minimum 1:1 ratio) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other Wildlife waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation or operations, although a higher mitigation measure may be perquises by is a use aBle red oratio tor Cugh an an eating, 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
4.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 306
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
(DATE/INITIALS)
Procedures for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Grading and/or building permits and plans for City of Salinas In the event implementation may cause a development in the project area shall note the following: In the event that Community that evidence of substantial adverse change in the evidence of archaeological or historical features or deposits (eg, ceramic Development archaeological significance of sesource as defined in CrOA shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters) are uncovered (discovered during Department or historical excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in the area of the find until an features or Guidelines §15064.5 appropriate avoidance or data recovery program can be developed and Qualified deposits (eg. implemented by a qualified archaeologist. This archaeologist shall determine Archaeologist ceramic shard, whether the uncovered deposits or features qualify as either "historical trash scatters, the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, lithic scatters) susouves dith nine meaninglogical resources as defned in Public are uncovered Resources Code section 21083.2, subdivision (a), or "tribal cultural (discovered) resources," as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074. If historical during resources, unique archaeological resources, or tribal cultural resources are excavation Present as erect nerd by the haly Plane and or materment any ace ef and/or grading feasible mitigation measures identified by the archaeologist and approve and imposed by the City. In assessing whether avoidance is feasible the City Planner shall consider project design, logistics, and cost considerations. All costs associated with the City's Planner's determination of project design, logistics and cost considerations shall be borne by the developer/applicant.
Importance sir ites or wrase icture or erecte exore ant 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 unless otherwise directed by the City Planner. Data recovery, including photo documentation, excavation and recovery, laboratory analysis, etc., shall be an determ if ed ese be on iue are is legisl resource but not hautorical 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 (Đ. Grading/building permits and plans shall note this measure.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-15 307
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
3.3-2: Project Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. See Mitigation See Mitigation Impact
Measure 3.3-1 Measure 3.3-1
implementation may cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5
Impact 3.3-3: Project Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Grading and/or building permits and plans for City of Salinas implementation may directly or development in the project area shall note the following: If paleontological Community paleontological indirectly resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be Development resources are patently giestesoure unique halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Department discovered Salinas shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to during the determine the significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is Qualified course of Paleontologist construction
where the resource could be curated and displayed for public education Impact 3.3-4: Project Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Grading and/or building permits and plans for City of Salinas If human implementation may disturb development in the project area shall note the following: If human remains Community remains are human remains, including those are found during construction within the Specific Plan Area, or at off-site Development discovered interred outside of formal Department during the
infrastructure improvement locations, there shall be no further excavation or cemeteries course of
disturbance of the area of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected Monterey construction to overlie adjacent human remains until a qualified archeological monitor County Coroner within the and the coroner of Monterey County are contacted. If it is determined that Specific Plan the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native Native Area American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Heritage most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD Commission may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a
4.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 308
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Impact 3.3-5: Project Implement mitigation measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. Se ure 333 See Mitigation implementation may cause a Measures 3.3-3
substantial adverse change in the and 3.3-4 and 3.3-4
significance of a tribal cultural
resource
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
reparate: re Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to the approval of the tentative maps, City of Salinas Prior to the greenhouse conditional use permits or site plan review, as applicable, the project Community approval of the emissions, either directly or applicant shall prepare a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) aimed at Development tentative maps indirectly, that may have a achieving specific performance standards. The GGRP may be prepared Department and significant impact on the development
environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b) and shall include the following: review permits
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 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 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-17 309
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
consistent with the criteria set forth Section 95972, subdivision (a) of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not include offsets originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the City and/or the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Such credits must be purchased through one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (i) through the CAPCOA GH R 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 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 coze/service population/year by 2040, and 0.80 MT CoZe/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
4.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 310
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
approval of the tentative map or development review application, as applicable. Where the applicant concludes that the GGRP meets the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine whether, in its independent judgment, the GRP actually does meet the threshold of significance, and shall ensure that all proposed measures will be effective and enforceable. In determining whether, as the applicant may assert, sufficient feasible GHG reduction measures are unavailable to reduce GHG emissions to below the threshold of significance, the Community Development Department shall determine, in its independent judgment, whether there might be additional feasible measures, including qualifying carbon offsets, available to meet the thresholds of significance. In making this determination, the Community Development Department shall consider the feasibility of imposing additional measures, including requiring the applicant in the mate any ador had qua deing carbon of est armeghobel prolate 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 (ill) would render the proposed project economically infeasible within the meaning of CEQA case law such as Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598-601. After the Community Development Department has approved a GGRP, the GRP shall be forwarded to the City Planning Commission for its consideration and potential approval. The Planning Commission shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a GGRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the GGRP at a noticed public hearing or meeting at which public testimony shall be considered.
Implementation of this mitigation measure shall not be required if the City has a qualified GHG reduction plan in place on the date a future individual project application subject to the GHG reduction plan is deemed complete, the qualified GHG reduction plan reflects the most recent legislatively- adopted GHG reduction targets (e.g., the 2030 target set by SB 32), includes Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-19 311
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Impact 3.4-2: Potential to conflict Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. See Mitigation See Mitigation with an applicable plan, policy, Measures 3.4-1 Measures 3.4-1 or regulation adopted for the
emissions of greneduse gas the
Impact 3.4-4: Cumulative impact See Mitigation See Mitigation climate change from Measures 3.4-1 Measures 3.4-1
project-related
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.5-1: Potential to be Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits or building City of Salinas Prior to located on a site which is permits, (including the issuance of demolition permits for agricultural Community issuance of included on a list of hazardous support buildings) as applicable, the applicant shall hire a qualified Development gradits or materials sites compiled Department
consultant to: building
Section 659623 ar, as a cout, permits,
1) Provide a final evaluation of the soils around the agricultural (including the would it create a significant operations support buildings (residences, warehouses, barns, etc.) hazard to the public or the issuance of
environment before they are demolished. If toxic levels of residual agrichemicals demolition or surface staining are found, the contaminated soil shall be permits for excavated and disposed of at an off-site disposal facility permitted to agricultural accept such waste. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated by support the project applicant in accordance with recommendations made by buildings) as applicable
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
4.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 312
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
already been removed, a Cal-OSHA certified ACBM and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with U.S. EPA and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/SHA) 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.
The two known gasoline USTs located on APNs 211-013-003 or -010 and -011 and APN 153-091-001 shall require proper removal in accordance with Monterey County permit requirements prior to planned development. Any unused fuel and oil ASTs and containers located in the vicinity of the agricultural buildings and equipment yards shall be properly removed and recycled or disposed of. Any associated petroleum hydrocarbon subsurface impacts associated with the USTs, ASTs and fuel and oil containers/storage areas shall require proper removal in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and recommendations by the Monterey County Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-21 313
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies.
Investigation and reporting for Polychlorinated bipheny/s (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. City of Salinas Prior to the
Community issuance of
Observations and a screening level Phase II ESA soil sampling and Development grading analytical testing shall be completed for APNs 211-013-003, -007, - Department permits 010 and -011 prior to any development approvals.
Monterey
contaminated areas shall be remediated by the project applicant in County Health accordance with recommendations made by the Monterey County Department Health Department Hazardous Materials Management Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or other appropriate federal, State, or local City of Salinas Prior to the
regulatory agencies. issuance of
Community
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, existing Development building Department permits
water wells within the grading area shall be destroyed under permit from the City of Salinas and/or the Monterey County Health Department as Monterey applicable. Any destruction of these facilities shall be in accordance with the County Health Monterey County Well Standards for Abandonment/Destruction. The project Department applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate destruction of
4.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 314
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
these facilities.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the water well or wells that will be providing water for the applicable portion of the Specific Plan Area, shall be constructed and tested for water quality under permit from the Monterey County Health Department. The project applicant shall provide the City of Salinas with a copy of the permit and a report or other information documenting the appropriate construction and operation of these facilities.
Impact 3.5-2: Create a significant Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: The property line of all school sites (even if it is a City of Salinas Prior to hazard to school sites due to joint use agreement as described in subsection (0) of § 14010) shall be at Community approval of siting or the placement of least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements Development improvement as identified in the California Code of Regulations Title 5, Article 2. School Department plans for any Sites § 14010, Standards for School Site Selection (c): school site 100 feet for power lines that are between 50 and 133 kV.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Iroct has the potential ed Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project Prior to • proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOD) and Storm Water Pollution Public Works issuance of violate water quality standards Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Salinas prior to submitting to the grading or waste discharge requirements RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm permits during construction Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Regional Water Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Oualitv Control The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed to be effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPS, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and shall not preclude the use of equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Salinas. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB or the Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-23 315
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY TIMING (DATE/INITIALS) City of Salinas.
Impact 3.6-2: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Prior to the project proponent shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department the Public Works issuance of project Improvement Plans. The Improvement Plans shall be consistent with grading the City's Development Standards, Standard Plans, and current NPDES permits permit requirements at the time of permitting. The NPDES permit granted to the City of Salinas by the Central Coast RWQCB (RWQCB - Central Coast Region, 2019) requires the following:
Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs - Erosion control and sediment control BMPs shall be designed, installed, and maintained to reduce the discharge of pollutants from construction sites to the maximum extent practical (MEP) and protect water quality;
Erosion and sediment from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of erosion control (source control) and other sediment control BMPs; and
Soil Stabilization - Stabilization of disturbed areas shall, at a minimum, be initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating, or other earth disturbing activities have permanently ceased.
Additionally, the Improvement Plans shall be consistent requirements of the City's most current Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The City of Salinas Stormwater Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects (City of Salinas, 2013) require the following practices:
Limit disturbance of creeks and natural drainage features and provide setbacks according to the City's latest NPDES permit; Minimize compaction of highly permeable soils; and
Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation to the
minimum needed to build the project and provide fire
4.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 316
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
protection.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, Prior to the the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a approval of site Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for water quality City of Salinas improvement best management practices (BMPs) and water quality detention/retention Public Works plans basins designed to meet the applicable regulatory requirements and to Department reduce contaminant loadings to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.
The approved Stormwater Control Plans shall be submitted to the Central Coast RWQCB through SMARTS as part of the project's SWPPP permit documents.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit to the Salinas Public Works Department a Prior to the Stormwater Control Plan detailing plans and calculations for operational approval of site City of Salinas improvement
water quality best management practices (BMPs) and water quality Public Works detention basins designed to prevent to the maximum extent practicable the plans Department
creation of new sources of polluted runoff. Operational water auality BMPS may include extended detention basins, wet ponds/detention basins, porous pavement, inlet filters, vegetative BMPs, underground infiltration systems, vegetative swales, or storm drain stenciling and posting of signage. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.
Prior to the
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, approval of site the project applicant shall submit a Hydrologic study as part of the City of Salinas improvement Stormwater Control Plan to the Salinas Public Works Department detailed Public Works plans Bians and ce desagned for supremental reutem ens and to rew ce peak. Department flows during storm events below peak flows under pre-project conditions. The detailed plans and calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-25 317
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
Impact 3.6-3: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.6-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, City of Salinas Prior to the project has the potential to the project applicant shall site, and design and include an Operation and Public Works approval of site substantially deplete Department improvement
Maintenance Plan for stormwater retention/infiltration basins and groundwater supplies plans
infiltration promoting BMPs sufficient to assure that there is no reduction in interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. In order to assure there is no reduction in recharge, groundwater recharge the plan shall result in circumstances which maintain infiltration to support baseflow and interflow to wetlands and surface waters, and deep vertical infiltration to groundwater. The site, design, and installation shall be consistent with the requirements of the City's Stormwater Development Standards for New and Redevelopment Projects. The contents of the site, landscaping (ground cover, bushes and trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable), design, and installation shall be included in a Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan shall be reflected on the Improvement Plans and subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall submitted for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-7: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, City of Salinas Prior to the the project applicant shall site, design, and include an Operation and Public Works approval of site Maintenance Plan for post-construction BMPs and supplemental stormwater Department improvement detention basins in accordance with City of Salinas stormwater development plans standards. Maintenance procedures (including frequency of procedure, cleaning schedules, applicant responsibility for each procedure, performance standards, or other means) and funding mechanisms shall be established for those facilities to assure adequate long-term performance and success in treating the water and controlling infiltration into the groundwater. The Improvement Plans and Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6-6: Place housing or Mitigation Measure 3.6-8: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, City of Salinas Prior to the structures that would the project applicant shall submit an application for a letter of map revision Public Works approval of site impede/redirect flows within a based on fill (LOMR-F) to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and Department improvement 100-year or year flood FEMA with pertinent information and studies for approval that indicates no
4.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 318
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
hazard area as mapped on a building construction would take place within remapped FEMA flood zones plans federal Flood Hazard Boundary AE and A and that no changes to the regulated floodway will result in an or Flood Insurance Rate Map or increase in the base flood elevation or impact the downstream waterways. other flood hazard delineation
Mitigation Measure 3.6-9: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas City of Salinas Prior to the
Public Works Department detailed grading plans and calculations designed Public Works approval of site to place enough fill onto the shaded Zone X area as to raise the land surface Department elevation above the base flood elevation so that flooding hazards improvement minimized to a FEMA flood standard. The project applicant shall submit an application for a LOMR-F to the City of Salinas floodplain administrator and FEMA with pertinent information for approval.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-10: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner, detailed plans, City of Salinas Public Works Prior to the
calculations, landscaping (and irrigation, as applicable) plans, and design Department approval of site basis reports improvement
detention/retention/water quality basins, within the flood hazard extents plans identified as Zones A and AE that provide assurances that during large storm events, creek flows and sediment transport from upstream sources are not impeded at the same time as when the adjacent basins are at or near capacity. The design basis reports for creek corridor restoration shall also be submitted to the USACE, USFWS, and RWQCB and any required permitting processed prior to City approval. All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping (ground cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-11: Prior to the approval of site improvement City of Salinas plans, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan that provides sufficient supporting documentation and calculations to the Salinas Prior to the Public Works Department to address sediment transport issues of fine- approval of site grained materials from upstream and local sources that could cloa improvement Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-27 319
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
infiltration capacities and could fill required storage space within the plans stormwater basins at the downstream boundaries of the project area to the extent practicable.
The calculations to address these sediment transport issues may include:
A streamflow and sediment transport (bedload and suspended sediment) data collection monitoring program that begins one-to two-years pre-construction and continues through a mandated post- project timeframe and would provide volumetric information for calculations related to the potential for sediment deposition.
Pre-project measurements could be used to estimate sediment loading, which could inform the design of mitigation measures and enable estimates of maintenance frequencies needed ensure ongoing efficacy of the measures. During project execution and after project completion, measurements of bedload and suspended sediment in the channel at the downstream boundary of the project could be used to verify performance of sediment management measures and avoidance of associated sediment transport impacts.
The United States Geological Survey gage record on Gabilan Creek (#11152600) contains limited suspended sediment data that was collected in March and April of 2017. These data could be used to compare to and/or validate measurements obtained via field data collection.
Strategies and measures to address these sediment transport issues may include:
Bioretention Basins: Bioretention basin features provide multiple water quality functions for stormwater systems, including performing as depositional areas for sediments that settle and get trapped in the bioretention media.
An operations and maintenance plan shall be used to address specific
4.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 320
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING VERIFICATION TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
maintenance requirements related to sediment accumulation, such that basin media remediation would take place when a threshold condition (such as a certain amount of sediment accumulation on the basin floor) is reached. For instance, if sediment deposition exceeds a depth of 2-inches, even a small patch, the sediment would require removal to keep the basin functioning properly.
Furthermore, the functional lifespan of bioretention media (mulch, soils, drain rock, underdrain) is generally about 15 years. Annual monitoring reports could be used to track basin performance under varying wet season conditions and used to guide media replacement Treatment Wetlands: Treatment wetlands are designed to mimic the natural infiltration, nutrient cycling, habitat, and a myriad of other important ecological functions provided by natural wetlands.
Treatment wetlands could be constructed at storm drain outfall locations or adjacent to or off-channel from a creek channel.
Wetlands could vary between those that are highly designed and may need relatively high levels of maintenance to more naturally based designs that may need more limited maintenance, each with varying levels of treatment potential.
Treatment performance is a function of wetland to watershed ratio, wetland treatment design, area hydrology, hydraulic residence time, and source pollutants. The preferred residence time through wetlands varies based on vegetation type and quantity, water depth, temperature, and design flow rates. Having a lower design flow rate can result in longer hydraulic residence time, which is preferred particularly at the start of a rainy season, since the "first flush" volume of stormwater runoff will generally contain the highest concentrations of pollutants. Treatment wetland design generally considers dry season irrigation return flows and first flush principles. vegetation appropriate to the environment, such as willows, could Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-29 321
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
grow rapidly on channel banks and trap sediments, removing sediment from streamflows as well as from local surface runoff.
Floodplains: Floodplains provide one of the most important storage spaces for sediment as it moves discontinuously through a watershed. Naturally functioning floodplains generally extend laterally past the immediate riparian buffer zone into relatively flat areas. Floodplain access could be provided by bank and channel grading at specified design storm flows. The rate of sediment deposition on floodplains is largely dependent on the frequency of inundating flows, the suspended sediment loads in the river, available floodplain area, and presence of vegetation.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-12: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide an Operation and Maintenance Plan as part of the Stormwater Control Plan with sufficient supporting City of Salinas Prior to the documentation and calculations for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works approval of site Public Works Department demonstrating that risks associated with Department improvement reduction of infiltration capacity in the detention/retention/water quality plans basins shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-13: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with sufficient supporting documentation and calculations that the risks associated with basin embankment side slope failure because of the Prior to the non-cohesive nature of Gabilan and Natividad Creek corridor sediments will City of Salinas approval of site be minimized to the extent practicable. Public Works improvement Department plans
Mitigation Measure 3.6-14: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures for review and approval by the Salinas Public Works City of Salinas Prior to the Department such that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues Public Works associated with sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed Department by the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that sedimentation or loss of infiltration capacities are addressed and subsequently approve the operations,
4.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 322
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the project.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-15: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, the project applicant shall provide the Salinas Public Works Department with operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures such that City of Salinas Prior to the
any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with Public Works approval of site embankment side slope failures are addressed by the operations, Department improvement maintenance, and SWPPP procedures. Should the Salinas Public Works Department find that any detention/retention/water quality basin issues associated with embankment side slope failures are addressed and subsequently approve the operations, maintenance, and SWPPP procedures, the applicant shall implement the procedures through the lifetime of the All basins shall be designed to have a natural appearance through the use of varied bank slopes (through grading) and appropriate landscaping around cover, bushes, trees, etc.) and irrigation (as applicable). A landscaping plan, irrigation plan and maintenance plan (all prepared by a qualified professional) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department and the City Planner.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-31 323
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) NOISE
Impact 3.7-2: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans City of Salinas Prior to the and respective permits, plans shall note that construction activities shall Community approval of site project has the potential to improvement
increase noise levels associated adhere to the requirements of the City of Salinas Municipal Code with respect Development with construction activities Department plans
and resion Me pere 3 plans or to the pat al fate in on one pies, City of Salinas Prior to the
with factory equipped mufflers and in good working order. All stationary Community approval of site noise generating equipment (i.e. generators) shall be located at least 200 feet Development improvement from a sensitive receptor. All construction staging areas shall be located at Department least 200 feet from a sensitive receptor.
Impact 3.7-4: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans City of Salinas Prior to and respective permits, the plans shall note the location, design, and Community approval of expose new sensitive recal are construction details of the eight-foot to nine-foot tall sound walls and/or Development improvement Department plans and
to excessive transportation noise landscaped berm/wall combinations, as applicable, that will be constructed respective
along the primary Specific Plan Area roadways, adjacent to proposed permits residential dwellings, in order to achieve the City's exterior noise standards.
At the City's discretion, wall heights which achieve the City's conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Lan noise standard may be allowed. See the Draft EIR Table 3.7-14 for specific noise barrier/wall heights along each roadway.
Additionally, at the City's discretion, alternative noise reduction measures which achieve the City's conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Lan noise standard may be allowed. Alternative noise reduction measures, such as building orientation and use of noise-attenuating features, can be utilized provided that a site-specific acoustical analysis is conducted that demonstrates that the alternative methods would ensure that noise levels do not exceed the City's conditionally acceptable 60-70 dB Lan noise standard.
Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the City of Salinas based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable. The design/appearance of the wall is subject to
4.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 324
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING VERIFICATION TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
the design approval by the City of Salinas to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided.
Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City's Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffit.
These graffiti prevention best management practices may include, without (1) The use or the installation and maintenance of ant-graffiti materials and surface treatments approved by the City on likely graffiti-attracting surfaces.
(2) Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. (3) Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti- attracting surfaces.
(4) Immediate removal of graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two hours.
(5) Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (PTED).
(6) Authorizing right of access by city employees or contract agents to remove graffiti if not removed within specified time periods. (7) Supplying the city at its request with paint (of the appropriate color and type), cleaning agents, and/or other materials acceptable to the city to abate or to deter graffiti.
(8) Other requirements, as deemed reasonably feasible by the city planner, to deter, to protect or to reduce the potential for graffiti Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-33 325
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
defacement.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: Prior to the approval of building permits, the City of Salinas Prior to first row of residential dwellings located along E. Boronda Road and Community approval of Development building
Constitution Boulevard shall include windows having a Sound Transmission Department permits Class (STC) 35, or higher, rating installed in second floor facades and rooms that have windows or doors that abut or face E. Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard. Exterior walls shall also require 3-coat stucco and RC-channels, sheathing, or another acceptable construction application that effectively attenuates noise intrusion to the interior of the house. The exterior wall specifications would specifically apply to the first row of homes that abut or face E. Boronda Road and/or Constitution Boulevard and only apply to the facades facing these roadways. The specifications do not apply to single story homes, or the first floor of a two-story home, both of which are attenuated by the sound wall. These requirements shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. A detailed analysis of any additional interior mitigation measures shall be conducted when building plans are available and prior to building permit issuance to verify these requirements. These requirements shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: Prior to the approval of building permits, mechanical ventilation shall be required in the first row of all residential City of Salinas Prior to dwellings that abut E. Boronda Road and Constitution Boulevard, as desired Community approval of for acoustical isolation, to keep their doors and windows closed and still Development building maintain acceptable interior temperature and noise levels. This requirement Department permits shall be included in the building plans for the specific dwelling units and noted on the building permits. This requirement shall also be noted in the site improvement plans prior to approval by the City.
Impact 3.7-5: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: Prior to the approval of site improvement plans, City of Salinas Prior to the project has the potential to as applicable, when parks or play areas are located near residential uses, the Community approval of site expose sensitive receptors to center of active play areas, such as football fields, soccer fields or other Development improvement substantial noise from proposed Department plans
athletic fields, shall be located at a minimum distance of 90-feet from the park and school uses nearest residential property lines. Large active play areas shall comply with the 60 dB Lea and 70 dB Lmax standards, and shall include these further noise level evaluations during the design phases of future park areas.
4.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 326
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY TIMING
(DATE/INITIALS)
Parks shall be designed such that residences front, or side in limited locations where approved by the City Planner, to the park. Minimum 6-foot tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed where school site directly abuts a residential property line in instances where site design (i.e., minimum distances, siting of activity areas, etc.) cannot achieve the 60 dB Lea and 70 dB Lmax noise standards. No wall shall be required where residential uses are fronted towards a park or school site and separated by a roadway or a walkway.
Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, stucco or manufactured materials (with a density of four pounds per square foot or greater), earthen landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials as determined appropriate by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner. The desian/appearance of the walls is subject to the design approval by the Salinas Public Works Department and the City Planner based upon the standards contained in the Central Area Specific Plan and the Salinas Zoning Code, as applicable to ensure that it is visually pleasing. Wood is not permitted due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The walls shall not have gaps or penetrations which allow sound to flank through or around the walls. Small gaps which may occur using materials such as "keystone" blocks shall be avoided. Additionally, in accordance with Section 5-03.19 of the City's Municipal Code, best management practices shall be incorporated into the sound wall design in order to control graffiti and/or mitigate the potential impacts of graffiti (see Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 for further discussion of best management practices.
Impact 3.7-6: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-7: Prior to the approval of development review City of Salinas Prior to the project has the potential to permits, the plans shall demonstrate: where mixed use commercial, business Community approval of substan sal noise from props sed professional, office, or similar uses face residential uses or where loading Development development docks or truck circulation routes face residential areas, the following Department review permits commercial mixed-uses measures shall be included in the project design:
All HVAC equipment shall be located within mechanical rooms where possible or shielded from view with solid or grated barriers; Emergency generators shall comply with the City's noise criteria at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers;
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-35 327
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
Delivery/loading activities shall comply with the Salinas Zoning Code standards and regulations; and
The applicant shall submit a noise study to verify that the appropriate noise control measures have been incorporated into the project design and will achieve compliance with the City's noise level standards.
Impact 3.7-7: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.7-8: The potential well sites are shown in the Specific City of Salinas Prior to Plan. The actual wells are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit Community approval of the prose has the recents to (CUP) by the City pursuant to the requirements of the Salinas Zoning Code Development CUP and substantial noise from proposed and the Central Area Specific Plan. The potential well sites and the CUP Department subsequent well sites issuance of the
requirement for said facilities shall be clearly noted on the site improvement building plans. permits for the
well and
Prior to approval of the CUP and subsequent issuance of the building permits for the wells, the plans shall demonstrate that the following measures shall Facilitent plant be included in the project design:
• The wells have been designed and will be built to not exceed a noise level of 55 dB Leq at the nearest residential or school property line during normal operation of the facilities;
The generators shall not be permitted to exceed the City's daytime noise standard of 60 dB Leai
• The generators shall be tested only during daytime hours; and Additionally, that the wells have been designed (in accordance with the Central Area Specific Plan) to incorporate decorative screen walls, landscaping and other features to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of City of Salinas Prior to the project may require Occupancy for each dwelling unit (and prior to issuance of building permits Community issuance of a construction of fire department for non-residential uses), the applicant shall pay all applicable project impact Development Certificate of facilities which may cause fees per the impact fee schedule. Department Occupancy for substantial adverse physical each dwelling
4.0-36
328
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
environmental impacts unit and prior
to issuance of
building
permits for
non-residential
uses)
Impact 3.9-3: Project Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each City of Salinas Prior to the implementation may result in the dwelling unit, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees mandated by SB issuance of need for the construction of new 50 to the Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD), Alisal Union School Cevelument building schools, which has the potential District (AUSD), and/or Santa Rita Union School District (SRUSD) (only Department permits for to cause substantial adverse required for the SRUSD if the school district boundary adjustment between each dwelling physical environmental impacts the SRUSD and the AUSD is not completed as anticipated) and provide documentation of said payment to the City.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.10-1: Under Existing Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-1: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to Plus Project conditions, development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Public Works issuance of implementation of the proposed for the optimization of existing signal timings at North Main Street/Laurel Department Certificate of Specific Plan would conflict with Drive, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project Occupancy for performance measures applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of residential and established by the City of Salinas, Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance Monterey County, and Caltrans Bulating permit
for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the issuance for fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of non-residential currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the development intersection design.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-2: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Prior to for the widening of the intersection at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive to City of Salinas issuance of add additional northbound and southbound through lanes, in proportion to Public Works the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance Department Occupancy for with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential prior to development). This improvement is part of the City's Traffic Improvement building permit Program. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final issuance for non-residential
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-37 329
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY TIMING (DATE/INITIALS) development
requirement.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-3: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to
development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Public Works issuance of for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of North Sanborn Department Certificate of Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development Occupancy for by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to residential and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building prior to permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be building permit determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this issuance for improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-4: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Prior to for the optimization of existing signal timings and to add an eastbound left City of Salinas issuance of turn pocket at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Public Works Certificate of Bernal Drive/La Posada Way, in proportion to the area planned for Department Occupancy for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies residential and (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees building permit shall be determined by the City of Salinas. This condition includes the Isnares dential addition of an eastbound left turn pocket and optimization of the existing development signal timing to better accommodate the expected changes in traffic distribution and volume with implementation of the proposed project. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-5: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding City of Salinas Public Works Prior to
for the optimization of existing signal timings and splits at the South Department issuance of Sanborn/North Sanborn/John Street intersection, in proportion to the area Certificate of planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City Occupancy for policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential residential and and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total Buloring permit fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans
4.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 330
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This issuance for condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control non-residential Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design. development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6: Prior to the approval of final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share City of Salinas Prior to funding to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Regional Public Works issuance of Development Impact Fee (RDIF) Program and the City of Salinas' Traffic Department Certificate of Impact Fee (TIF) Program, as determined by the TAM and the City of Occupancy for Salinas, respectively, in proportion to the area planned for development by residential and such project applicant. These programs include improvements to U.S. 101 prior to that would improve mainline and ramp junction operations, which would building permit Ramp and Northbound West Laurel Drive Off-Ramp. development Impact 3.10-2: Under Existing Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-7: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to Plus Project and Central Area development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Public Works issuance of Implementation of the proposed Plan conditions, for the installation of a traffic signal at San Juan Grade Road/Van Buren Department Certificate of Avenue, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project Occupancy for Specific Plan may conflict with applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of residential and established ory the cly or alias, Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance Monterey County, and Caltrans for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City issuance for of Salinas. The final improvement plans for each stage of project non-residential development shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding development requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-8: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of City of Salinas Prior to funding to optimize the existing traffic signal timing and splits at intersection Development issuance of of North Main Street/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned Certificate of Occupancy for
for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies residential and (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees Building permit shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall issuance for Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-39 331
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This non-residential condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control development Systems (ATS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-9: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share funding Prior to for the optimization of the existing signal timing at San Juan Grade City of Salinas issuance of Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development Community Certificate of by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to Development Occupancy for issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building Department residential and permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be prior to building permit
improveme be the the olstare finding rentent ris contin til issuance for non-residential
include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems development (ATS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-10: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding to convert the eastbound right turn lane to a shared through-right Prior to turn lane at Natividad Road/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area City of Salinas issuance of planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City Public Works Certificate of policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential Department Occupancy for and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total residential and fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans buloring permit shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This issuance for
condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control non-residential Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas development Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-11: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of North Prior to Sanborn Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for City of Salinas issuance of development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies Public Works Certificate of Occupancy for
(payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and
4.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 332
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees Department residential and shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall prior to note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This building permit condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control issuance for Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design. non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-12: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of Prior to funding for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Williams Cro Sorts issuance of Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for development Department Certificate of by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to Occupancy for issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building residential and pereit ed ay the ory ostend the dev improvement plans seat ott bie Bad ng permit issuance for
improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall non-residential include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems development (ATCS) in the intersection design.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-13: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of funding to add a southbound left turn pocket and optimize traffic signal City of Salinas timings at the traffic signal at Salinas Street/North Main Street/West Market Public Works Prior to Street/East Market Street, in proportion to the area planned for development issuance of by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to Certificate of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building Occupancy for permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be residential and determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this peong permit improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems issuance for (ATCS) in the intersection design. This condition shall include the use of non-residential currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the development intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Impact 3.10-3: Under Cumulative Recommended Cordition of Approval 3.10-14: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to Plus development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share of issuance of implementation of the proposed funding to the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee to provide Certificate of Specific Plan may conflict with improvements addressing this impact identified as the installation of a Occupancy for the transportation performance residential and
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-41 333
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY TIMING (DATE/INITIALS) measures established by the City traffic signal at intersection of U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Echo Valley prior to of Salinas, Monterey County, and Road/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. Regional fees shall be determined by the building permit Caltrans City of Salinas in consultation with TAMC. This condition shall include the use nones dental of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the development intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-15: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall contribute its fair-share of Public Works issuance of the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee to provide improvements Certificate of addressing this impact identified as the installation of a traffic signal at Occupancy for intersection of U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. Total residential and fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas in consultation with TAMC Brioring permit Fees are payable prior to final improvement plans for each tentative map. non-residential
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-16: Prior to the approval of development final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Crazy Horse Canyon Road/San Juan Grade Road, in proportion to the area planned Prior to for development by such project applicant. Total fees shall be determined by City of Salinas issuance of the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement Departments Certificate of and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall consider the use Occupancy for of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the residential and intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works broing permit Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-17: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Natividad Road/Rogge Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by City of Salinas Prior to such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to Public Works issuance of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building Department Certificate of permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be Occupancy for residential and
determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall Boring permit consider the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems
4.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 334
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
(ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public issuance for Works Department. non-residential
development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-18: Each project applicant for development ren the spector an area at al provide to fle-stare, Road/Russell Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to City of Salinas issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building issuance of permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be Departments Certificate of
determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this Occupancy for improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall residential and include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public building permit Works Department. issuance for
non-residential
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-19: Each project applicant for development development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share Prior to contribution for the installation of southbound and westbound left turn lanes City of Salinas issuance of
at the intersection of North Main Street/East Boronda Road, in proportion to Public Works Certificate of
the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance Department with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residental and residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential prior to development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final building permit improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding issuance for requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available non-residential Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as development specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-20: Each project applicant for Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share City of Salinas issuance of contribution for the installation of a northbound right turn overlap phase at Community Certificate of the intersection of North Main Street/West Laurel Drive, in proportion to the Development Occupancy for area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with Department residential and City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for But ing permit residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential issuance for development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final non-residential Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-43 335
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding development Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-21: Each project applicant for Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share issuance of contribution for the installation of a southbound left turn lane at the City of Salinas Certificate of intersection of Constitution Boulevard/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the Public Works Occupancy for area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with Department residential and City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for prior to residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential building permit development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final issuance for improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-22: Each project applicant for Prior to City of Salinas issuance of
development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share Community Certificate of contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Development Occupancy for Stage Road/Williams Road/Private Road, in proportion to the area planned Department residential and for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and building permit prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees issuance for shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall developmental note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design, as specified by the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-23: Each project applicant for Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share City of Salinas issuance of contribution for the installation of'a northbound through lane, the addition Community Certificate of of a northbound right turn overlap phase, and the conversion of the Development Occupancy for Department residential and
westbound through lane to a westbound shared through-left turn lane at the intersection of North Main Street/East Bernal Drive, in proportion to the Being permit area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with issuance for City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for non-residential residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final
4.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 336
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
improvement plans shall note these improvements and the fair-share funding development requirement.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-24: Each project applicant for City of Salinas
Coveributen or thin safeti an Are shal provide us at stage Cevelopment issuance of lanes at the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Certificate Pr Drive/La Posada Way, in proportion to the area planned for development by Department such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to residential and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building Duoring permit permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be issuance for determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this non-residential improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. development Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-25: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share City of Salinas Prior to Community issuance of
contribution for the installation of an eastbound left turn lane at the Certificate of Development
intersection of Williams Road/East Boronda Road, in proportion to the area Department Occupancy for
planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City residential and policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential prior to and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total building permit fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans issuance for shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-26: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share contribution for the installation of a westbound left turn lane at the City of Salinas intersection of South Davis Road/Blanco Road, in proportion to the area Prior to Community issuance of
planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City Development Certificate of policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential Department Occupancy for and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total residential and fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. During permit Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-27: Each project applicant for nomance fontial development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share development contribution for the installation of a northbound left turn lane at the Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-45 337
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
intersection of Main Street/Blanco Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-28: Prior to the approval of City of Salinas Prior to the final improvement plans for each tentative map, each project applicant for Public Works approval of development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share Department final contribution for the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Old Stage improvement Road/Hebert Road, in proportion to the area planned for development by plans for each tentative map
such project applicant. Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas.
The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. This condition shall include the use of currently available Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) in the intersection design.
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-29: Each project applicant for City of Salinas Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of Community issuance of Development Certificate of
funding for the installation of an eastbound left turn lane at Constitution Occupancy for Department
Boulevard/East Laurel Drive, in proportion to the area planned for residential and development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall non-residential note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. development Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-30: Each project applicant for Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of issuance of funding for the installation of an appropriately sized roundabout at North City of Salinas Certificate of Community
Sanborn Road/Boronda Road, in proportion to the area planned for Development residentia and development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies Department prior to (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and building permit prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. development
4.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 338
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-31: Each project applicant for Prior to development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of issuance of funding for the installation of a southbound left turn lane at East Front City of Salinas Certificate of Street/Sherwood Drive/Market Drive, in proportion to the area planned for Communtent Occupancy for development by such project applicant, in accordance with City policies residential and Department prior to
(payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for residential and building permit prior to building permit issuance for non-residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of Salinas. The final improvement plans shall issuance for note this improvement and the fair-share funding requirement. developmental Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-32: Each project applicant for development within the Specific Plan Area shall provide its fair-share of Prior to funding for the installation of an eastbound through lane at Salinas issuance of City of Salinas Certificate of
Street/North Main Street/West Market Street/East Market Street, Community proportion to the area planned for development by such project applicant, in Occupancy for Development residential and
accordance with City policies (payable prior to issuance of Certificate of Department prior to Occupancy for residential and prior to building permit issuance for non- building permit residential development). Total fees shall be determined by the City of issuance for Salinas. The final improvement plans shall note this improvement and the non-residential fair-share funding requirement. development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-33: Implement previously Prior to issuance of
rent ted secon ended Condition of interse 3.10 14 shich Senties the Development Certificate of Department Occupancy for
Ramps/Echo Valley Road/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. residential and Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-34: Implement previously Comestina prior to identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-15, which identifies the building permit Development issuance for
need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at U.S. 101 Northbound Department non-residential Ramps/Crazy Horse Canyon Road. development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-35: Implement previously Prior to identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-16, which identifies the Development issuance of need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Crazy Horse Canyon Department Certificate of Road/San Juan Grade Road. Occupancy for
residential and
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-36: Implement previously Development prior to Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-47 339
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-28, which identifies the Department building permit need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Old Stage Road/Hebert issuance for Road. non-residential
development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-37: Implement previously City of Salinas Community Prior to
identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-17, which identifies the Development issuance of need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Natividad Road/Rogge Department Certificate of Occupancy for
City of Salinas residential and
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-38: Implement previously Community prior to identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-18, which identifies the Development building permit need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Natividad Road/Russell Department issuance for Road. non-residential
City of Salinas development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-39: Implement previously Community Development Prior to
identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-7, which identifies the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at San Juan Grade Road/Van Department issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for
residential and
City of Salinas prior to
Community building permit
identifies the need to install southbound and westbound left turn lanes, and Development issuance for to optimize signal timing, at North Main Street/East Boronda Road. Department non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-41: Implement previously City of Salinas identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-2, which identifies the Development Prior to need to install northbound and southbound through lanes at Natividad issuance of Department Certificate of
Road/East Laurel Drive.
Occupancy for
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-42: Implement previously City of Salinas residential and identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-21 and 3.10-29, which Development building permit
identify the need to Install southbound left turn lane and an eastbound left Department issuance for turn lane at Constitution Boulevard/East Laurel Drive. non-residential development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-43: Implement previously identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-3, which identifies the City of Salinas Prior to need to install a roundabout at the intersection at North Sanborn Community issuance of Development
4.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 340
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
Road/Boronda Road. Department Certificate of
Occupancy for
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-44: Implement previously City of Salinas residential and identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-22, which identifies the prior to need to install a traffic signal at the intersection at Old Stage Road/Williams Delopment building permit Road/Private Road. Department issuance for
non-residential
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-45: Implement previously development identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-23, which identifies the City of Salinas need to install a northbound through lane, add in a northbound right turn Prior to Community issuance of
overlap phase, and convert the westbound through lane to a westbound Development Certificate of shared through-left turn lane at the intersection of North Main Street/East Occupancy for residential and
prior to
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-46: Implement previously building permit identified Recommended Condition of Approvals 3.10-4 and 3.10-24, which City of Salinas issuance for identify the need to install northbound and southbound through lanes, Community non-residential Optimize existing signal timings, and add an eastbound left turn pocket, at Development development the intersection of Sherwood Drive/Natividad Road & East Bernal Drive/La Department Posada Way. Prior to
issuance of
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-47: Implement previously Certificate of City of Salinas Occupancy for
identified Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-12 and 3.10-25, which Community residential and identify the need to traffic signal or roundabout, to improve the Development prior to intersection's LOS to A during the evening peak hour, and to install an Department building permit eastbound left turn lane, at the intersection of Williams Road/East Boronda issuance for non-residential
development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-48: Implement previously City of Salinas identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-31, which identifies the Community Prior to need install a southbound left turn lane at the intersection of East Front Development issuance of Department Certificate of
Street/Sherwood Drive/Market Drive.
Occupancy for
City of Salinas residential and
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-49: Implement previously Community identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-26, which identifies the Development prior to need install a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of South Davis building permit Department issuance for
non-residential
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-49 341
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
Road/Blanco Road. development
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-50: Implement previously City of Salinas Prior to identified Recommended Conditions of Approval 3.10-13 and 3.10-32, which Community issuance of Development Certificate of
identify the need to install a southbound left turn lane and optimize signal Occupancy for timings, and to install an eastbound through lane, at the intersection of Department residential and
Salinas Street/North Main Street/West Market Street/East Market Street.
Buir tng permit
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-51: Implement previously City of Salinas issuance for identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-27, which identifies the Community non-residential need to install a northbound left turn lane at the intersection at South Main Development development Street/Blanco Road. Department
Prior to
Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-52: Implement previously City of Salinas issuance of identified Recommended Condition of Approval 3.10-6, which identifies the Community Certificate of need to contribute to the TAMC RDIF Program and payment of the City of Development Occupancy for Salinas's Traffic Impact Fees for the U.S. 101 Mainline Segments. Department residential and Dur ng permite
nouaresedental
development
4.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 342
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT FOR THE 2002 SALINAS GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM EIR
AESTHETICS
A1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-1 - City Community Ongoing - the Gateway Guidelines. Implementation Program CD-1 requires the City to Development City is required implement the City's Gateway Guidelines addressing identification to implement graphics and entry signs, lighting, and landscaping for the City's major this measure entry points identified in Figure CD-1. everywhere it
applies.
A2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-2 - Ongoing - the Architectural Design. Implementation Program CD-2 requires the City to Development, City is required she cites then as Desi noeline and retire antence place Redevelopment to implement this measure
development with particular emphasis on: 1) historic areas of the everywhere it community; and 2) properties visible from Highway 101. applies.
A3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-3 - Community Ongoing - the Lighting Ordinance, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program CD-3 Development Compreened requires the City to improve the City Lighting Ordinance to ensure that: 1) all future outdoor lights include cut-off lenses to minimize light dispersion this measure above the fixture head; 2) a lighting study is required to be performed everywhere it when appropriate to ensure adequate light levels, while not exceeding applies. industry standards; and 3) sky glow is reduced.
At The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-4 - Ongoing - the Landscaping Standards, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program CD- Derdument, City is required 4 requires the City to implement landscaping requirements for public and Redevelopment to implement private development and redevelopment projects to promote greater Agency this measure visual and functional compatibility with residential development and everywhere it pedestrian/bicycle use. applies.
A5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-5 - Community Ongoing - the Review Discretionary Development Projects, on an ongoing basis. Development City is required Implementation Program CD-5 requires the City to review discretionary to implement development proposals for potential aesthetics impacts per the California this measure Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The standards established in the everywhere it Zoning Code, the City's Design Guidelines, Landscaping Standards, Lighting applies.
Ordinance, Gateway Guidelines, the projects incorporation of Traditional Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-51 343
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
Neighborhood Development (TND) characteristics, and the projects potential to damage or block scenic resources and views will be used to determine the significance of impacts. If potential impacts are identified, mitigation in the form of project redesign (e.g., bulk, height, architectural details, lighting) will be required to reduce the impact to a level less than A6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-10 - Community Ongoing - the Buffers, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program COS-10 requires Development City is required the City to encourage the provision and maintenance of buffers, such as to implement roadways, topographic features, this measure
incompatibilities between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. A everywhere it number of factors shall be used to determine the appropriate buffer, applies. topography, and pesticide and
A7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 - Community Ongoing - the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, on an ongoing basis. Development, City is required Implementation Program COS-9 requires the City to continue to cooperate County of to implement with the County of Monterey to implement the Boronda Memorandum of Monterey this measure everywhere it
and eastaway from ch dimes prad city farth occur generally to the north applies.
A8 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7 - Community Ongoing - City-Centered Growth, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program LU-7 Development, though the requires the City to give priority to redevelopment and infill projects that Redevelopment project convert reduce development pressure on agricultural lands and establish an Agency existing incentive program to promote these projects, such as priority permit agricultural processing and density bonuses, for such developments. lands to urban development,
the City is
required to
implement this
measure
everywhere it
applies.
A9 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-8 - Community Ongoing - the California Main Street Program on an ongoing basis. Implementation Development, City is required Program CD-8 requires the City to expand community participation in the Public Works, to implement
4.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 344
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
Main Street Program and continue to work with the Program to create an Redevelopment this measure identity that emphasizes our cultural heritage and attracts businesses and Agency, everywhere it consumers to the downtown area. Oldtown applies.
Salinas
organization
A10 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-14 - Community Ongoing - the Historic/Architectural Preservation, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Development, City is required Program COS-13 requires the City to consider implementing a Redevelopment to implement historic/architectural preservation program and a historic/architectural Agency, City this measure preservation ordinance that encourages public/private partnerships to Manager's everywhere it preserve and enhance historically significant buildings in the community. Office, City applies.
Measures to implement may include, but are not limited to, Transfer of Council, County historic architectural resoures revstab process, and implementation of a Assessors Office
Mills Act program. TDR could benefit the community by protecting historic resources through an agreement that allows the development potential ("rights") on the historic property to be transferred to another property when the historic resources on the original property is preserved.
The Mills Act program would involve the City entering into a contract with a property owner to change how the County Assessor calculates taxes on their property in exchange for the continued preservation of the property by the property owner. The adjusted property taxes are recalculated using a formula in the Mills Act and Revenue and Taxation Code.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
AGI The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 - Community Ongoing - the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requires the City to Development, project would continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the County of comply with Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth Monterey this measure. occur generally to the north and east away from the most productive AG2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7 - Community Ongoing - City-Centered Growth, which requires the City to give priority to Development, although the redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development pressure on Redevelopment project would agricultural lands. Establish an incentive program to promote these Agency dercultural projects, such as priority permit processing and density bonuses for such Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-53 345
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
developments. lands, the City
gives infill
development
priority for
development
an ongoing
basis.
AG3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-11, Ongoing - the which requires the City to be consistent with the County of Monterey's City is required "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance, and the County of Monterey Draft General Plan to implement Policy LU-7.8 and Actions LU-7.b and LU-7.c, revise the City's Zoning this measure Ordinance to require the recordation of a Right-to-Farm Notice as a everywhere it condition of discretionary permit approval for residential development applies. within 1,000 feet of an established agricultural operation. The purpose of the Notice is to acknowledge that residents in the area may experience inconveniences and discomfort associated with the normal farming and grazing activities, such as noise and dust. The Notice shall specifically state that a variety of activities may occur that may be incompatible with the proposed development and that an established agricultural operation in due companes with surable a area at not be consters satisance person's right to recover under a nuisance claim against these activities Community Ongoing - the
Butes, willi requires the city to emerge pe praco and Development City is required maintenance of buffers, such as roadways, topographic features, and open to implement this measure
space tra pany enses. A mpatib of a or shal be usedito determine the everywhere it appropriate buffer, including type of agricultural use, topography, and applies. pesticide and machinery use, among others.
AG5 The City will work with the County of Monterey, and other local Community Ongoing - the jurisdictions, to create and implement an agricultural land conservation Development City is required easement program including such measures as securing the dedication of to implement easements or by paying a mitigation fee that could be used to purchase this measure easements through a mitigation bank. everywhere it
applies.
4.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 346
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-3 - Ongoing - the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Update, which requires the City to Development, project is
consestend update General ladnand Suldivisie endian eteransure Public Works consistent with the General
policies and New Urbanism principles. Plan and
follows New
Urbanism
principles.
LU2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-8 - Community Development, Central rea
Draft General Plan, and to cooperate with LAFCO and the County of LAFCO, County Specific Plan is consistent
Mona, one yand that are served or are phanied to be served, with a Grante these requirements.
network, public transit, safety and emergency response services, parks, LU3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-22 - Community Ongoing - the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City to update Бана Агрот and implement the Airport Master Plan. Funding has been approved to contate the Salowing: andres minimum distance for The saptere should this measure everywhere it
south of airport, define how the Eastern bypass can best be integrated with applies.
ILS approach, and determine limitations on surrounding land uses and new roadways to allow continuation of airport operations, including the potential lengthening of runway 31/13, and the California International County Airport any use Pan of the Californ airport and tus Manning, Handbook, the Salinas General Plan will be reviewed and revised, as necessary.
LU4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-23 - Ongoing - the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan, which requires the City to Cemenopment, City is required continue to support the implementation of the Monterey County Airport Salinas Airport, to implement Land Use Plan (MCALUP) and support the timely update of the MCALUP to County of this measure everywhere it
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-55 347
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) meet new State guidelines. Monterey applies.
The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 - Community Ongoing - the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requiring the City to Development, City is required continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the County of to implement Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth Monterey this measure everywhere it
faculagenerally to the north and east away from the most productive applies.
LU6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-7, Community Ongoing - which requires the City to encourage City-Centered Growth and give Development, though the priority to redevelopment and infill projects that reduce development Redevelopment project convert Agency existing
agricultural
lands to urban
development,
the City is
required to
implement this
measure
everywhere it
applies.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
H1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-8 - County of Ongoing - the Household Hazardous Waste Program, which requires the City to continue Monterey City is required to work with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to implement the Environmental to implement Household Hazardous Waste program to protect resident from dangers Health Division, this measure resulting from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used Salinas Valley everywhere it in the home. Solid Waste applies.
Authority
H2 The City will implement General Plan implementation Program S-9 - Small County of Ongoing - the Business Hazardous Waste Program, which requires the City to continue to Monterey City is required work with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to implement the Small Environmental to implement Business Hazardous Waste Program, which allows qualified small Health Division, this measure businesses to dispose of their hazardous wastes at the Salinas Hazardous Salinas Valley everywhere it Household Waste Collection Facility. Solid Waste applies.
4.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 348
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
Authority
H3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-7 - County of Ongoing - the Hazardous Materials, which requires the City to minimize public health Monterey, City is required risks and environmental risks from the use, transport, storage, and Environmental to implement disposal of hazardous materials by: Health Division, this measure Salinas Fire everywhere it
Cooperating with federal, state, and county agencies to effectively Department, applies. regulate the management of hazardous materials and hazardous California Department of
Cooperating with the County of Monterey to implement the Transportation applicable portions of the County Hazardous Waste Management Identifying roadway transportation routes for conveyance of hazardous materials (the City does not exercise jurisdictional over transportation of freight along railroad right-of- way or state highways);
Implementing the Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan for accidents involving hazardous materials; and
Cooperating with the Certified Unified program Agency (CUPA) for Salinas (the County of Monterey, Environmental Health Division) and the Salinas Fire Department to administer Risk reporting the results of soil sampling where needed to determine whether remediation is required.
H4 Community Ongoing - the
That cly wil implementire are it to content on to real s Development, City is required
Commissionhe proof ethe responde ust of pestecounty Agricultural Fire to implement Department, this measure
County appleshere it
Agriculture
Commission
H5 Ongoing - the
Thod control insurance, ich re pies the diy to con pe parts pare Communent: to imprenuired in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Development and Permit this measure
Services, Public everywhere it
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-57 349
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) Works applies.
H6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-19 - Community Ongoing - the Development, City is required
alod Overlad sect Distani regulate spires an one one r Development to implement Code and implement Section 9, Article VI of the Municipal Code, to and Permit this measure minimize the potential impact to and from new development in areas Services, Public everywhere it subject to flooding. Update the boundaries of the District as needed to Works applies.
H7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-17 - Public Works Ongoing - the Project-Related Flood Control and Stormwater Management, which City is required to implement
this measure
everywhere it
applies.
hydrological/drainage analysis to be performed by a certified an City- approved engineer, with the cost of said analysis the responsibility of the H8 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-22 - Development Ongoing - the and Permit City is required
Promote Fire Prevention, which requires the City to promote fire prevention in Salinas by: Services, Fire this measure
Department,
Working closely with the Salinas Fire Department to implement water everywhere it fire hazard education and fire prevention programs; companies applies.
Coordinating with Cal Water and Alco water districts and the Salinas Fire Department to ensure that water pressure for existing developed areas and sites to be developed is adequate for fire fighting purposes;
Conform to Fire Department requirements for individual
Adopting and implementing the most recent Uniform Fire Code provisions and appropriate amendments; and
Continue to require sprinklers in new buildings.
H9 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program CD-10 - Ongoing - the Weed Abatement, which requires the City to continue to monitor and abate Abatement City is required weeds throughout the community. Specialist to implement this measure
everywhere it
4.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 350
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
applies.
H10 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-12 - Fire Ongoing - the Fire Protection, Emergency Services, and Law Enforcement Annual Level Department, Of Service Review, which requires the City to review the level of services Police and funding levels at budget time, adjusting when necessary to ensure that Department adequate levels of service are provided and facilities are maintained. everywhere it applies.
H11 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-21 - Ongoing - the Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the City to continue Development, City is required
working with the Salinas Airport Commission to implement the Airport Salinas Airport to implement Master Plan, providing technical assistance and information to the this measure Commission when necessary. Funding has been approved to update the everywhere it Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan. The update should contain the following: address minimum distance for Eastern bypass south of airport, define how Eastern bypass can best be integrated with ILS approach, and determine limitations on surrounding land uses and new roadways to allow continuation of airport operations, including the potential lengthening of runway 31/13, and the California International Airshow.
Upon any update of the Airport Master Plan, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan or the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the Salinas General Plan will be reviewed and revised, as necessary.
H12 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program C-8 - Community Ongoing - the
Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, which requires the City to Development, City is required continue to coordinate with the Monterey County Airport Land Use Salinas Airport, to implement Commission (ALUC) on projects near the airport. Encourage ALUC to Public Works, this measure update its County Airport Land Use Plan. County of everywhere it Monterey, applies.
Development
and Permit
Services
H13 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-11 - Air Community Ongoing - the Transportation Safety, which requires the City to minimize the potential Development, City is required for accidents related to aircraft operation by coordinating with the Development to implement Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to review and Permit this measure development proposals for compatibility with the Salinas Municipal Services, everywhere it Airport Master Plan, Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan, and Monterey Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-59 351
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for comprehensive airport Salinas Alport applies. land use planning.
H14 Community Ongoing - the
Shins Municipal Airport Master Plan, which requires the Pity to revise the Development, City is required Airport Master Plan in order to update operational and safety procedures, Salinas Airport, to implement reflect State and Federal mandates, better utilize airport property, and this measure recommend land use compatibility standards for land surrounding the everywhere it applies.
H15 Community Ongoing - the
Development, City is required
Salinas Airport to implement
Commission, this measure
and use a ne Cary able or land Use, anine handbok, reviery ALUC everywhere it noise plan within the General Plan Noise Element to correspond with the applies.
H16 Mather mergeny Plan, witch requires the cry to anitay periou Community Ongoing - the Development, City is required
and update the Multi-Hazard Emergency Plan under the provision of the Police to implement State Emergency Management System format to maximize the efforts of Department, this measure Fire everywhere it
minimize human suffering and property damage during disasters. Provide Department, applies. public and
cooperation an esonuni aton tor Superor i plave malt waistenat private medical Solicit private individuals and organizations to enhance service provider facilities, communications and response with cellular telephones, ham radios, Monterey AM/FM radio, and cable television. County
Emergency
Communication
s, Monterey
County Mobile
Emergency
Coordination
Unit, Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
4.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 352
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
H17 Ongoing - the
Emergency Preparemes leto, an in reminate ry to size Brea Department, City is required
appropriate genit and guanize and property derall and immediately Federal to implement 11 Emergency this measure
Management everywhere it
Agency applies.
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
GEOLOGY/SOILS
GS1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-14, Development, Ongoing - the
Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, prior to the approval of a discretionary City is required permit. Implementation Program S-14 requires the City to assess to implement development proposals for potential hazards pursuant to the California Department, this measure Environmental Quality Act, requiring measures when necessary to mitigate Public Works everywhere it all identified public safety hazards. applies.
GS2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-15 - Community Ongoing - the Open Space Easements for Natural Hazards, when the threat from natural Development City is required hazards cannot be mitigated through geotechnical and structural design to implement methods. Implementation Program S-15 requires the City to use open this measure space easements and other regulatory techniques to prohibit development everywhere it and avoid unmitigable public safety hazards. applies.
GS3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-16 - Development Ongoing - the Structural Design, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-16 and Permit City is required requires the City to implement the most recent state building and seismic to implement Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-61 353
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING (DATE/INITIALS)
RESPONSIBILITY
requirements for the structural design of new development and Services this measure redevelopment projects. everywhere it
applies.
GS4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-17 - Soil Community Ongoing - the and Geologic Surveys, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Program S-17 Development City is required requires that during the review of development and redevelopment to implement proposals, the City require surveys of soil and geologic conditions by state and Permit this measure licensed Engineering Geologists and Civil Engineers where appropriate. Services, Public everywhere it When potential geologic impacts are identified, the City shall require Works applies. project applicants to mitigate the impacts per the recommendations contained within the geologic survey.
GS5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-23 - Community Ongoing - the Multi-hazard Emergency Plan, on an ongoing basis. Implementation Development, City is required Program S-23 requires the City to maintain the Multi-hazard Emergency Police to implement Plan under the provision of the State Emergency Management System Department, this measure format to maximize the efforts of emergency service providers (e.g., fire, Fire everywhere it medical, and law enforcement) and minimize human suffering and Department, applies. property damage during disasters. Support high-level multi-jurisdictional public and cooperation and communication for emergency planning and management. private medical Solicit private individuals and organizations to enhance service provider facilities, communications and response with cellular telephones, ham radios, Monterey AM/FM radio, and cable television. County
Emergency
Communication
s, Monterey
County Mobile
Emergency
Coordination
Unit, Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross.
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
4.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 354
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS)
Services
GS6 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program S-24 - Fire Ongoing - the Emeram Preparednes tie ation co an ongoing a cal agents and Department, Federal
organizations to educate all residents and businesses to take appropriate Emergency action to safeguard life and property during and immediately after Management everywhere it emergencies. Agency applies.
(FEMA),
American Red
Cross,
Monterey
County Office of
Emergency
Services
POPULATION AND HOUSING
PH1 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program HE-2 - Community Ongoing - the Provision of Future Sites, which requires the City to continue to work with Development City is required the Local Agency Formation Commission to ensure that sufficient land, to implement infrastructure, and services are available to support housing development. this measure everywhere it
applies.
PH2 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program LU-12 - Fire Ongoing - the Fire Protection, Emergency Services, and Law Enforcement Annual Level of Department, City is required Service Review, which requires the City to review the level of services and Police aeduat evel at burie are pradust and thenties are ana in insure that Department this measure everywhere it
applies.
PH3 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program C-3 - Public Works Ongoing - the City is required
to implement
this measure
facilities, including improvements to the existing pedestrian and bicycle everywhere it applies.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-63 355
City of Salinas | Final Central Area Specific Plan, November 2020
4.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MONITORING TIMING VERIFICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBILITY (DATE/INITIALS) PH4 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-9 - Derduent, Ongoing - the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which requires the City to City is required continue to cooperate with the County of Monterey to implement the County of to implement Boronda Memorandum of Understanding, which directs that City growth Monterey this measure occur generally to the north and east from the most productive farmland. everywhere it applies.
PH5 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-33 - Ongoing - the City is required
pront Energy Be the rear we regret the co prete Services, utility to implement companies this measure
to rene informational iterators aput available are urite roman tas everywhere it City offices, the Permit Center, and libraries. applies.
Smat rout rices ence repare the cry to use the sai Come Community Ongoing - the Development, City is required
Network's Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation Public Works to implement (ICMA, 2002) or other similar policy manual, perform an "audit" of the this measure City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to identify potential everywhere it impediments to the development of smart growth and traditional applies. neighborhood development projects. Revise, adopt, and implement new standards and procedures as necessary to encourage smart growth and traditional neighborhood development in Salinas.
PH7 The City will implement General Plan Implementation Program COS-23 - Community Ongoing - the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Development, City is required Monterey Bay to implement
Ma Montere Pay Which Air ires then coy to continue to coperate vite Unified Air this measure most recent Air Ouality Management plan to address regional motor Pollution everywhere it vehicle emissions. In particular, coordinate with the District and AMBAG, Control applies.
District,
during the development sature po demon role daby Macallable, AMBAG
4.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 356
Appendices
FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
4.0 PROGRAM
This page left intentionally blank.
Final Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 4.0-65 357
Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752
Megan E. Macy, SBN 227002
2 Michael R. Linden, SBN 192485
LOZANO SMITH
3 4 Lower Ragdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940-5758
4 Telephone: 831) 646-1501
Facsimile: (831) 646-1801
5 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
6 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and
SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10 11 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and Case No. 20CV003402
SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
12 PETITIONERS' OPENING BRIEF IN
Petitioners and Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED
Max 831) 646-300- 13 PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF
VS. MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
14 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
LOZANO SMITH CITY OF SALINAS; and DOES 1 THROUGH RELIEF 15 10, inclusive,
Date: November 14, 2022
16 Respondents and Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
Lower 85 al Didge: 14
17 The Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
BRIAN FINEGAN; and DOES 11 THROUGH 20,
18 inclusive, (Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to
Gov. Code, 86103)
19 20 Real Parties in Interest.
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 Exhibit 68)
Pets? Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...2
3 INTRODUCTION. ...5
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..6
5 A. THE SPECIFIC PLAN... ...6
6 B. THE CITY'S DRAFT EIR...
..6
7 C. SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMENTS ON THE DEIR. ...7
8 D. THE CITY'S FEIR. ..8
9 E. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION
10 OF THE PROJECT
.9
11 THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.. .9
CA 93940-5758 646-1801 12
G. THE DISTRICTS' PETITION AND COURSE OF LITIGATION .9
= 13
STANDARD OF REVIEW. .10
LOZANO SMITH * 14
ARGUMENT. ..11
15 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey 646 46- I. THE CITY AGAIN VIOLATED CEQA BY CERTIFYING AN 216 EIR THAT CONTAINED ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS
(83 REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELATED TO
717 SCHOOLS.. 11
18 A. The Doctrine of Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Applies. .12
19 20 The Districts Are Entitled to Judgment Based on the CASP Record and the Law.... 13
21 It is Undisputed that There is Insufficient Funding
22 for New Schools. .13
23 The City's Responses to the Districts' Comments
24 Provided No Justification for Not Analyzing
Significant Environmental Impacts Related to
25 Existing School Facilities. 15
26 II. THE CITY VIOLATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND
GOALS RELATED TO THE EDUCATION OF ITS CITIZENS,
27 WHICH CONSTITUTES INDEPENDENT GROUNDS TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDATE. 19
28 Pets. Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 2- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 III. CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ISSUANCE OF WRIT
2 RELIEF TO THE DISTRICTS, THE COURT SHOULD ALSO
ISSUE JUDGMENT AWARDING DECLARATORY AND
3 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF...... ..20
4 CONCLUSION.......... ..21
5 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT.... .22
6 7
10 LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 Tel (831) 646-1501 Fax (831) 646-1801 5 a =
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Pets. Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 3 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Cases
3 In re Alberto
(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421 .12
4 5 Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
(2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 935... .10, 11, 15
6 Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera 7 (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016...... .7, 16, 17, 18
8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553
9 18,19
10 Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona
(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985 19
11 Coscia v. McKenna Cuneo
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194 .12
Fax (831) 646-1801 13 Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332.... .19
14 LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Assoc.
15 (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 .20
Tel (831) 646-1501
16 Galzinski v. Somers
17 (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1175. 11
18 Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025 18
19 Las Tunas Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. V. Super. Ct. 20 (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1002
.20
21 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. 22 (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 10, 14, 16, 18
23 Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App. 4th 85 .12
24 Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
25 (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 888
.12
26 People v. Woodard
27 (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 107 .12
28 Planning & Conservation League v. Dept. of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892 .16,19
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 2-
AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 Roos v. Red
(2005) 130 Cal.App. 4th 870 ..12
2 Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry
3 (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215 ..19
4 Sutton v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1149 ..12
5 6 Topanga Assn, for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 .11
7 Vallejo Police Officers Assn. v. City of Vallejo
8 (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601 .11
9 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova 10 (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 11,16,18
11 Statutes and Codes
646-1801 12 California Code of Regulations
Monterey, CA 93940-5758
= 13 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088 .15
(83
Ễ 14 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4 11,14,18
LOZANO SMITH
15 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15131 ..8
Tel (831) 646-1501
4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, 16 15
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15144
17 Code of Civil Procedure
18 Code Civ. Proc., § 389 ..1
19 Code Civ. Proc., § 526 20
20 Code Civ. Proc., § 1060 .20
21 Code Civ. Proc., § 1085 .5,11
22 Code Civ. Proc., § 1094 ..11
23 24 Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5... .5,10
25 Government Code
26 Gov. Codo, § 65996 ....5, 8, 16, 18
27 28 /lI
- 3- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pets! Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 Public Resources Code
2 Pub. Resources Code, $§ 21000 et seq.....
3 Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2 .11
4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
.19
5 Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.8 15,16
6 Pub. Resources Code, § 21167 ...5
Pub. Resources Code, § 21168 ..5
8 Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5
9 .....5, 10
Other Authorities
10 (Stats. 1998, ch. 407), Senate Bill No. 50 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.). ... passim 10722
$ 12
:A 9.
214
LOZANO SMITH
=16
wer 717
18 19
20 22
23 24
25 26
28 ets.' Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amende - 4-
et. for Peremptory Writ of Mandat AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Case No. 20CV003402
1 Petitioners ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("SRUSD") and SALINAS UNION HIGH 2 SCHOOL DISTRICT ("SUHSD"') (together "Petitioners" or "Districts") hereby submit the following 3 Opening Brief in support of their First Amended Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate under Code of 4 Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5, and Public Resources Code sections 21167, 21168, and 5 21168.5 ("FAP").
6 INTRODUCTION
In the related action Santa Rita Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242), SUHSD along with the Santa Rita Union School District 9 ("SRUSD") brought suit under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") against Respondent 10 City of Salinas ("Respondent" or "City") based on the approval of the West Area Specific Plan 11 ("WASP"), including its environmental impact report ("EIR"). (See Request for Judicial Notice 12 ['RJN"], Request No 1; Decl. of Michael R. Linden in Supp. of Opening Brief ["Linden Decl."], Ex. D.) Fax (831) 646-1801 • 13 As the Districts herein argue here in relation to the Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP" or "Project"), in 14 the WASP case the school district petitioners argued that since the record there demonstrated that LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 15 developer fees pursuant to Government Code section 65996 (Stats. 1998, ch. 407), Senate Bill No. 50 Tel (831) 646-1501 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) (hereinafter "SB 50") were not going to be sufficient to fund the construction of 17 new schools that the EIR represented would be constructed within the WASP, the EIR violated CEQA 18 because it did not analyze environmental impacts with the assumption that the school districts would 19 have to add significant capacity to their existing facilities due to this lack of funding. (See RJN, No. 1.) 20 This Court agreed, and Judgment was entered in the petitioners' favor on January 18, 2022! Similar to the WASP case, the instant action arises under CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law, 22 ("PZL'") related to approvals for the CASP made by the City on November 17, 2020, including the Final 23 Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). Same as the WASP, the CASP FEIR evaluated environmental 24 impacts based on the assumption that several new schools would be constructed to accommodate the 25 new students within the CASP area, and that SB 50 developer fees would constitute complete school 26 facilities mitigation under CEQA. During the CEQA process the City recognized the existence of the 27 then-pending WASP action, and admitted that "[t]he same logic" of the arguments later rejected by this 28 1 This case is currently on appeal. (Sixth Appellate District Case No. H049854.) Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 5- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 Court in the WASP action applied to the CASP. (Administrative Record ["AR"] 001349.) As this 2 Court found that the City violated CEQA in the WASP case, the only proper legal conclusion here is 3 that the CASP also has significant environmental impacts that were intentionally left unanalyzed in the 4 FEIR, in violation of both CEQA and PZL.
5 STATEMENT OF FACTS
6 A. THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
7 The CASP was created for the development of approximately 760 acres of land located within 8 the City's North of Boronda Future Growth Area ("FGA"). (AR019169.) The CASP proposes the 9 development of up to 3,911 residential dwelling units, up to 489,700 square feet of commercial uses, 10 approximately 61 net acres of public facilities, and approximately 148 net acres dedicated to parks and 11 open space uses. (AR000723.)
812 When drafted, the CASP fell within non-party SRUSD as well as Petitioners AUSD and 646-1
= 13 SUHSD. (AR019196.) Identified as sites to satisfy the needs of the districts were one 18-acre LOZANO SMITH elementary/middle school site (K-8) within SRUSD, one 12-acre elementary school site within AUSD; 15 and one 18-acre middle school site within SUHSD. (AR019197.) The K-8 site was the subject of a 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Tel (831) 646-1501
16 district boundary adjustment had been initiated between the three districts, where SRUSD would 17 relinquish that elementary school site to AUSD (and no longer have a site in the CASP). (AR019197.) 18 This site would be reserved for purchase by either SRUSD or AUSD, while the other two sites had 19 already been purchased by AUSD and SUHSD. (AR019197.) The CASP noted that proposed funding 20 sources for schools were the SB 50 fee as well as "TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey 21 County) and State and Federal." (AR019359.)
22 B. THE CITY'S DRAFT EIR.
23 On June 26, 2020, the City presented its public draft of the Draft EIR ("DEIR") for the CASP. 24 (AR000838-5854.) Per the DEIR, the CASP is expected to generate approximately between 3,591 and 25 4,033 additional students for the Districts (depending on whether there would be a boundary change 26 between SRUSD and AUSD, such that the SRUSD would not serve the CASP area. (AR001346.) 27 However, the DEIR represents that the Districts' existing schools were at or near full capacity. 28 (AR001325-29.) The DEIR also noted that in May of 2020, AUSD represented to one of the developers Pets.? Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 6-
Pet, for Peremptory Writ of Mandate AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Case No. 20CV003402
1 interested in the CASP that a third elementary school site may be needed within the CASP. 2 (AR001348.)
3 In a reference to the adjacent WASP, where SUHSD "questioned what the District saw as the 4 City's apparent assumption that the District had access to the financial resources necessary to build a 5 new high school within that project area," the City noted that it "responded that potential scenarios 6 described by the commenter are too speculative to give rise to meaningful environmental assessment, 7 particularly since, if they occur, they will occur over an extended period of time (perhaps 20 to 30 years), consistent with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan Area." (AR001350-51.) The City then 9 stated that the "same logic applies" to the CASP. (AR001351, emphasis added.) The City represented 10 that the CASP "would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (Impacts 11 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4- 12 1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and Fax (831) 646-1801 13 3.10-4)." (AR001351-52.) However, the only mitigation measure (3.9-2) was the payment of SB 50 14 fees prior to the issuance of building permits. (AR001352.) LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 15 C. SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMENTS ON THE DEIR.
Tel (831) 646-1501
1 6 During the 45-day comment period for the DEIR, the City received letters from both Districts as 17 well as SRUSD. (AR005961-72, 6001-09, 6029-33.) All three letters pointed out that funding may not 18 be available for the construction of new school sites and, as such, there was no environmental evaluation 19 of impacts related to the housing of new students at existing sites. (AR005965-68, 6004-06, 6029-33.) 20 In its letter, AUSD addressed the subject of inadequate school funding, and how the FEIR did 21 not address the very real possibility that due to this lack of funding the new schools contemplated by the 22 CASP would not be built, and instead there would be modifications to existing school sites resulting in 23 environmental impacts that had not been analyzed in the FEIR. (AR005965-69.) AUSD pointed out 24 that the DEIR stated that the payment of SB 50 impact amounted to "full and complete facilities 25 mitigation" for CEQA, which was not accurate because pursuant to "Chawanakee developer fees" "do 26 not constitute full and complete mitigation for school-related impacts other than school overcrowding." 27 (AR005965.) AUSD provided a detailed description of the "three-legged stool" for school funding 28 2 Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.
Pets? Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 pursuant SB 50 (State bond fund grants, developer fees, and local funding), and represented that due the 2 high improbability of obtaining sufficient state and local funding, AUSD would not be able to construct 3 the three new educational facilities assumed by the FEIR, especially as the buildout of the CASP was 4 estimated to be over a 20 to 30 year period. (AR005965-68) As a result, the district "will be forced to 5 consider other means of serving the students who will reside there, including "massive bussing and other 6 transportation to existing District sites, as well as overcrowding of those sites." (AR005968.) These highly likely environmental impacts went unanalyzed in the DEIR. 8 D. THE CITY'S FEIR.
9 Thereafter, the City prepared the FEIR for the CASP. (AR005855-6136.) In the FEIR, the City 10 provided responses comments made by the Districts regarding the likelihood that funding will not be 11 available to fund new school facilities, and thus what the CASP's impacts on the environment will be when the Districts' existing sites receive the influx of new students. (AR006010-28, 6034-44.) 646-3
(8320 However, the City made a series of arguments as to why such impacts did not need to be analyzed.
LOZANO SMITH £14 First, the City claimed that it could not account for the environmental effects of this lack of 15 funding because this analysis would be "speculative." (AR005988.) The City argued that it had "no 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey. Tel (831) 646-1501
'16 way of knowing how, over a 20-year period... each individual school might deal with its inability to 17 build a particular school within the Specific Plan Area." (AR005988.) The City took the position that it 18 had complied with CEQA because it "addressed the physical effects of school construction and 19 operation" in the EIR but did not address school overcrowding because of SB 50:
20 The City's approach to CEQA compliance has been correct. Consistent with SB 50 (see Draft EIR, pp. 39-14 - 3.9-15, 3.9-20), the City addressed the physical effects of school 21 construction and operation, along with all other land uses within the Specific Plan Area 22 (e.g., effects on biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, etc.) but did not treat school overcrowding as an environmental impact category subject 23 to CEQA. Rather, the City is requiring the applicants to pay their school impact fees, as contemplated by Government Code Section 65996, which provides that the payment of 24 such fees is deemed to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation" for any 25 demands on school facilities caused by new development. The Districts' demand for analysis of impacts on the Districts' financial condition goes beyond what the Legislature 26 has declared is required or allowed under CEQA. The demand is also contrary to long- standing distinctions between environmental impacts, on the one hand, and economic or 27 social impacts, on the other. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15131.) 28 (AR005990)
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 8-
AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 E. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT. 2 On October 21, 2020, the Project approvals came for consideration before the Planning 3 Commission in a public hearing, including: (1) the CASP; (2) the FEIR; (3) a rezoning ordinance; and 4 (4) a development agrcement. (AR00002-17.) Counsel for Petitioner AUSD submitted, on Petitioner 5 AUSD's behalf, a public comment, in the form of an email attachment, to the Commission's designated 6 public comment email address in advance of the meeting. The comment was accompanied by a cover 7 email, which explained that the comment was attached. However, during the public comment portion of 8 the meeting, the Commission merely read the cover email into the record and entirely disregarded 9 Petitioner AUSD's comment. (AR016043.) After the close of public comment, the Planning 10 Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council. (AR016049-64.) 11 F. THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
12 The City Council's hearing for the Project's approvals, including the FEIR, took place on Fax 831) 646-1801 • 13 November 17, 2019. (AR006165-285.) Nancy Pfeiffer, Petitioner AUSD's Associate Superintendent LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 14 for Business Services, provided public comment on the Districts' concerns and also submitted a letter 5 for the record. (AR016154-55.) Furthermore, counsel for AUSD (Manuel Martinez from Lozano Tel (831) 646-1501 Smith) submitted an emailed comment concerning school funding that was read into the record. 6 17 (AR016156-57.) The CASP, FEIR, and the CEQA findings of fact and statement of overriding 18 considerations were approved at this meeting, while the zoning ordinance and DA were introduced. 19 (AR016174-76.) The next day, November 18, 2020, the City filed Notice of Determination with the 20 County Clerk's office. (AR000001.) On December 1, 2020, the zoning ordinance and DA were 21 approved. (AR016206-14.)
22 G. THE DISTRICTS' PETITION AND COURSE OF LITIGATION. 23 On December 16, 2020, the Districts served the City with a Notice of Intent to bring suit under 24 CEQA related to the FEIR. On December 17, 2020, the Districts filed their original Petition for 25 Administrative and/or Traditional Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 26 ("Petition"). On March 8, 2021, the City filed a Demurrer to the original Petition and Complaint, 27 arguing that the Districts' action was time-barred because local attorney Brian Finegan, the purported 28 ///
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 9 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 CEQA "applicant," was not named and served as an indispensable party within the applicable 2 limitations period. On April 30, 2021, Petitioners filed their FAP, rendering the demurrer moot. 3 On May 25, 2021, the City filed a Demurrer to the FAP, making the same statute of limitations 4 argument that was made before. However, this Demurrer was overruled by Judge Marla O. Anderson at 5 the hearing on June 28, 2021, and the Order on the Demurrer was filed on October 8, 2021. On October 6 22, 2021, the City filed its Answer to the FAP.
7 In 2022, the complex civil judge assignment changed from Judge Anderson to Judge Carrie M. 8 Panetta. Shortly thereafter, on January 6, 2022, the City filed a Motion for Judgment pursuant to Code 9 of Civil Procedure section 1094, arguing again that the Districts' action was time-barred for failure to 10 name and serve an indispensable party within the applicable limitations period. During the course of the 11 briefing, the motion was transferred to Judge Thomas W. Wills, and Judge Wills heard the matter on 646-1801 12 April 22, 2022. Judge Wills then ordered and received further briefing from the parties, and took the =13 matter on submission. On July 7, 2022, Judge Wills issued an order denying the City's motion.
LOZANO SMITH STANDARD OF REVIEW
15 Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, a trial court determines whether the agency 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Tel (831) 646-1501
proceeded in a manner authorized by law, and whether the findings supporting the agency's decision are 17 supported by substantial evidence. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los 18 Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515) Consistent with this authority, the trial court in a CEQA 19 determines whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established "if the agency has 20 not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by 21 substantial evidence." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. 22 Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392-93 ["Laurel Heights"].) 23 Under this two-pronged framework, a court will "determine de novo whether the agency has 24 employed the correct procedures, 'scrupulously enforc[ing] all legislatively mandated CEQA 25 requirements,'" but accord "greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions." 26 (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 935 ["Banning Ranch"], 27 citations omitted). As such, when reviewing a public agency's CEQA compliance, the "court must 28 adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 10-
AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth 2 v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 ["Vineyard'].) When an agency's EIR "omit[s] 3 essential information," or does not address a necessary issue, that constitutes a procedural matter subject 4 to de novo review. (Banning Ranch, 2 Cal.5th at 935.) Distinct, the court applies "substantial evidence" 5 review when considering an agency's "substantive factual conclusions." (Id.) The Districts also are seeking a traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure 7 section 1085 based on the WASP's inconsistency with the City's General Plan. In this situation, the trial court determines whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, lacking in evidentiary support, 9 contrary to established public policy, or otherwise unlawful. (See Vallejo Police Officers Assn. v. City 10 of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.Sth 601, 611-12; Galzinski v. Somers (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1175.) 11 ARGUMENT
12 I. THE CITY AGAIN VIOLATED CEQA BY CERTIFYING AN EIR THAT CONTAINED
ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Fax (831) 646-1801 13 RELATED TO SCHOOLS.
14 CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an EIR for any proposed project that may have a LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 1 5 significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (d).) Under CEQA, the Tel (831) 646-1501 purposes of an EIR are: (a) to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed 16 17 information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; (b) to list 18 ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and (c) to indicate 19 alternatives to such a project. (Id., § 21061.) An EIR must identify all significant effects on the 20 environment caused by a proposed project that cannot be avoided, and must evaluate feasible measures 21 for minimizing or avoiding such impacts. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4.) 22 Here, neither the DEIR nor the FEIR for the CASP adequately informed the public that due to 23 the high probability of a lack of sufficient funding to build new schools, there will be significant 24 environmental impacts, including impacts related traffic, utilities, and public services, due to the 25 inevitable need to modify the Districts' facilities to accommodate the influx of new students. Therefore, 26 judgment in the Districts' favor should be granted.
27 28 /I/
Pets? Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 A. The Doctrine of Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Applies. 2 As admitted to by the City in its DEIR, this the exact same issue that was litigated by the parties 3 in the WASP action and was decided in favor of the petitioner school districts. (See RJN, No. 1; Linden 4 Decl., Ex. D.) Since the City has a full and fair opportunity to litigate the same issue in the WASP 5 action, the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel applies, and forecloses in this case any 6 outcome different from that reached in the WASP case. 7 Collateral estoppel applies when: (1) the party against whom the plea is raised was a party or 8 was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the 9 prior action, and (3) the issue necessarily decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one that is 10 sought to be relitigated. (See Coscia v. McKenna Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1201.) When 11 collateral estoppel would prevent a defendant from relitigating an issue that was previously litigated and 546-1801 12 lost, the courts also consider whether the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted had a full =13 and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. (See Roos v. Red (2005) 130 Cal.App. 4th 870, 879-80; Sutton LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1157.) 15 Here, while AUSD was not a party to the WASP case, the doctrine of offensive non-mutual Tel (831) 646-1501
16 collateral estoppel is applicable because the legal issue is the instant action exactly the same. (See Roos, 17 130 Cal.App.4th at 879-80; Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 102 18 Cal. App.4th 85, 91) While ordinarily a judgment that is the subject of an appeal does not have full res 19 judicata effect, the Court should not issue a ruling contrary to that issued by Judge Anderson because of 20 the strong interest in preventing wasted effort and expense in judicial administration. (See Mycogen 21 Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) Another strong, and related, interest is the 22 requirement that a superior court sits as a single court. (See In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 23 427; People v. Woodard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 107, 111.) Even though Judge Anderson's order came 24 from the WASP action, the City recognized in its DEIR that the legal issue in the WASP case is the 25 same as the issue that the Districts have raised here. (AR001349.) Thus, judicial economy counsels in 26 favor of either a ruling and judgment in the Districts' favor or a stay of proceedings in this Court. 27 /I/
28 //I
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 12 -
AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 B. The Districts Are Entitled to Judgment Based on the CASP Record and the Law. 2 Even if the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is not applied, the record 3 nevertheless demonstrates that the City violated CEQA in certifying the CASP's FEIR because it is 4 undisputed that there were potentially significant environmental impacts related to the need of the 5 Districts to modify their existing facilities that went unanalyzed in the FEIR, and intentionally so. 6 It is Undisputed that There is Insufficient Funding for New Schools. 7 First, the record is clear that there is insufficient funding for new schools. As stated in the 8 CASP, the Initial Study identified one 18-acre elementary/middle school site (K-8) within the SRUSD, 9 one 12-acre elementary school site within the AUSD; and one 18-acre middle school site within the 10 SUHSD. (AR006155.) The Statement of Overriding Considerations, which represented that "p]roject 11 implementation may result in the need for the construction of new schools, which has the potential to 12 cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts," including "significant and unavoidable 13 impacts related to air quality (Impacts 3.1-2, and 3.1-7), biological resources (Impacts 3.2-2, 3.2-9 and (83
Monterey, 3.2-12), greenhouse gases (Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-4), noise (Impacts 3.7-1, and 3.7-8), and transportation LOZANO SMITH 2 14
15 and circulation (Impacts 3.10-3, and 3.10-4). (DEIR, pp. 3.9-23 through 3.9-31)." (AR000769, Lower Ragsdale Drive, 16 emphasis added.)
17 In the DEIR, the City recognized the significant environmental impacts that would result from 18 the need to accommodate the influx of new students from CASP development. (AR001349.) The DEIR 19 represented that the Districts' existing schools were at or near full capacity. (AR001325-29.) However, 20 the City preemptively called the Districts' contentions regarding a lack of funding for new schools "too 21 speculative ... to give rise to meaningful environmental assessment." (AR001351.) The City then 22 changed the subject by arguing that "[w]hile school districts in California face funding challenges, the 23 Legislature and Governor keep reminding cities of the importance of building housing units to address a 24 statewide housing crisis." (AR01351.) Nowhere was it suggested that the Districts would have the 25 funding for the new schools promised by the CASP.
26 As anticipated by the City, the Districts (as well as SRUSD) all provided comment letters to the 27 DEIR related to the school funding issue. (AR005965-68, 6004-06, 6029-33.) The City was informed 28 (or reminded) that because a lack of funding it was highly unlikely that the new schools contemplated by Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 13 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 the CASP would be built, and instead there would be modifications to existing school sites. 2 (AR005965-69.) The letters provided by the Districts contained a detailed description of the school 3 funding apparatus in California, and demonstrated that due the high improbability of obtaining sufficient 4 funding, AUSD would not be able to construct the three new educational facilities assumed by the FEIR. 5 (AR005965-68.) As a result, the Districts "will be forced to consider other means of serving the 6 students who will reside there," including "massive bussing and other transportation to existing District sites, as well as overcrowding of those sites." (AR005968.) Therefore, the City was fully on notice of 8 the significant environmental impacts related to an influx of students on the existing school facilities, 9 which CEQA required the City to address. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4; Laurel Heights, 47 10 Cal.3d at 396.)
11 Responding to the Districts' comments in the FEIR, the City did not dispute the Districts' 12 conclusion regarding the funding shortfall. Instead, the City argued that the environmental effects 13 would be "speculative," and that it had "no way of knowing how, over a 20-year period... each 14 individual school might deal with its inability to build a particular school within the Specific Plan Area."
LOZANO SMITH
15 (AR005988.) The City again claimed that the only thing it had to do was require CASP developers to 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Tel (831) 646-1501
16 pay SB 50 fees, which it argued "covered any demands on school facilities caused by new 17 development." (AR005990.) Therefore, as was the case with the DEIR, the FEIR did not dispute the 18 fact that it was highly likely that there would be insufficient funding for new schools. 19 Based on the foregoing, the record indisputably demonstrates that the information related to 20 school funding provided by the Districts was never disputed by the City. (AR005988-90.) However, 21 rather than addressing this situation, significant environmental impacts related to school facilities were 22 evaluated exclusively with the erroneous assumption that new schools would be constructed. 23 (AR000769, 1349-51, 5988-91.) As discussed below, no reasonable argument that can be made that the 24 FEIR sufficiently informed the public about what would take place inside of the CASP with respect to 25 environmental impacts related to schools. (See Part II., infra.) 26 //I
27 28 I1I
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 14- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 The City's Responses to the Districts' Comments Provided No Justification for Not Analyzing Significant Environmental Impacts Related to Existing 2 School Facilities.
3 As it is undisputed that no evidence exists in the record for the proposition that new schools will 4 be constructed within the CASP, the analysis now turns to a de novo review of whether the FEIR 5 omitted necessary information or did not address necessary issues. (See Banning Ranch, 2 Cal.5th at 6 935.) In responding to comments on a Draft EIR, a lead agency must provide good faith, reasoned 7 analysis. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088, subd. (c).) When another local agency discloses new or 8 conflicting data demonstrating that the lead agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its 9 alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. (See Banning Ranch, 2 Cal.5th at 938-40.) As 10 discussed below, there was nothing in the City's responses that provided adequate explanation for the City's decision to not evaluate significant environmental impacts related to an influx of students on 1 12
existing facilities.
With respect the comment identified as I-3 (related to the suitability of a school site), the City argued that the DEIR "was not required to undertake a site-specific analysis for the school sites," and that
under CEQA and the Education Code, school districts have the ultimate say over school sites, and, in their capacity as lead agencies for such site-specific projects, they are responsible for addressing site specific issues under criteria found in the Education Code and CEQA (e.g., in Public Resources Code section 21151.8, described in detail above). 19 (AR005977.) This response is completely irrelevant to the issue raised by the Districts, which is that the 20 DEIR did not inform the public about what is far more likely to take place within the CASP. 21 Next, for comment I-5 (related to insufficient school funding), as discussed above the City first 22 argued that evaluating environmental impacts related to adding new facilities at existing sites or 23 changing transportation patterns would be "speculative," and then blamed the Districts "not offered any 24 specific scenarios for the City to consider, despite being in a far better position than the City to predict 25 how the school districts might react to funding shortfalls over the coming years." (AR005988.) The 26 Districts are not aware of any CEQA authority standing for this sort of burden-shifting, and furthermore 27 the CEQA Guidelines recognize that "[d]rafting an EIR ... necessarily involves some degree of 28 forecasting." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15144.) Here, the reasonably foreseeable situation with - 15 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 schools was repeatedly presented by the Districts to the City, and the City was required to analyze such 2 consequences. (See Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 396; Planning & Conservation League v. Dept. of 3 Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 920.)
4 The City then posited that "no land use plan (general plan or specific plan) is understood to 5 guarantee that the planned uses will materialize," but instead "such plans set forth a vision of land use 6 that might materialize if market conditions and public financing allow it to happen." (AR005988.) The problem is that the City represented that "new schools" would be built to accommodate the increase of 8 students within the Districts, and then analyzed the environmental effects based on this scenario. 9 (AR000769, 1349.) The City is not entitled to then discard the more likely scenario of no new schools 10 by claiming that the CASP only "set forth a vision of land use that might materialize...." (AR005988.) 11 It is undisputed that students are going to be generated by CASP development, so the FEIR is required 546-1801 12
to analyze the probable environmental effects of this generation. (See Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 396.) In attempt to paint itself as the facilitator between the developers and the Districts (instead of a 14 lead agency, the City also argued that "the Education Code and CEQA (Pub. Resources Code,
LOZANO SMITH
15 § 21151.8) task the school districts with the responsibility for design and construction of their own 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Tel (831) 646-1501
16 schools, and for conducting their own project-specific CEQA analyses in doing so," but that "[i]t is 17 standard for the City to require all development projects to adhere to the State's laws regarding the 18 funding of school facilities," and that "It]he City will fully cooperate with the school district, as it has in 19 the past, in the collection of the school impact fees that have been established by school district." 20 (AR005989.) Again, the issue is where the environmental impacts related to new student generation are 21 likely to take place. Contrary to the City's argument, lead agencies are not allowed to defer 22 environmental analysis just because another agency will make a future approval. (See Vineyard, 40 23 Cal.4th at 435; Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 393.) Instead, an EIR is required to contain an analysis of 24 the effects of future actions if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project. (See 25 Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 396.)
26 The City attempted to justify its approach by citing SB 50 and arguing that in Chawanakee 27 Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016 ("Chawanakee"), "[t]he court 28 said that, though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school Pets.! Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 16 -
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Case No. 20CV003402
1 overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school 2 construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, biological resources, and the like." The City then 3 argued that the holding in Chawanakee supported its approach because "the City considered school 4 construction as part of full buildout of the project area," and "It)he physical impacts of school 5 construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of development" because "'g]rading and site alteration are required for any kind of development." (AR005990.) This argument is completely 7 misleading because the issue is not about the environmental impacts that may eventually take place on a 8 | designated new school site, but rather where the environmental impacts related to new student 9 generation will take place. In fact, SB 50 is limited to "impacts on school facilities," and thus even if 10 impacts are near school facilities and related to students accessing the facilities, they do not fall under 11 the purview of SB 50. (Chawanakee, 196 Cal.App.4th at 1028-29.) 12 In Chawanakee, the defendant county argued that Government Code section 65996 ("section = 13 65996") stands for the proposition that an EIR for a development project did not need to identify, LOZANO SMITH analyze, evaluate, or propose to mitigate "any impacts on a school district's ability to accommodate 15 enrollment (i.e., overcrowding, interim facilities, permanent facilities and all other physical and financial 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Tel (831) 646-1501
:16 aspects)." (Chawanakee, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1026.) The Court of Appeal disagreed. 17 As a threshold matter, the Chawanakee court recognized that section 65996, subdivision (a), 18 "obviates the need for an EIR to contain a description and analysis of a development's impact on school 19 facilities." (Id.) However, the court analyzed the statutory text noted that section 65996 had been 20 amended such that it only applied to "impacts on school facilities," while the previous version of the 21 statute addressed impacts "related to" school facilities." (Id. at 1028.) The court characterized this 22 change as a narrowing of the statute because "Ti]n contrast to the breadth of 'related to,' the use of the 23 term 'on' indicates a direct relationship between the object (i.e., school facilities) and the impact and 24 excludes impacts to other parts of the physical environment." (Id.) Thus, "the project's indirect impacts 25 on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered 26 and mitigated." (Id.)
27 The City's arguments in the FEIR related to SB 50 and Chawanakee do not justify its approach 28 and avoid addressing the issue. The City first claimed that it "addressed the physical effects of school Pets' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 17- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 construction and operation, along with all other land uses within the Specific Plan Area (e.g., effects on 2 biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, etc.) but did not treat school 3 overcrowding as an environmental impact category subject to CEQA." (AR005990.) According to the 4 City, it does not matter where environmental impacts take place. Such a proposition is contrary to the 5 law, which requires an EIR to contain an analysis of reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project. (See Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 396; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4.) Thus, the EIR was required to have evaluated the environmental impacts associated with constructing additional facilities at the 8 Districts' existing school sites,
9 The City also argued that "It]he Districts' demand for analysis of impacts on the Districts' 10 financial condition goes beyond what the Legislature has declared is required or allowed under CEQA." 11 (AR005990.) However, the impact is not "on" the Districts' financial condition, but rather relates to 546-1801 12 what this condition will cause in terms of environmental impacts. The informational purpose of CEQA is not satisfied by an EIR that "simply ignores or assumes a solution" to a problem that has no support in 2 14 the record. (Vineyard, 40 Cal. 4th at 430-31.) As the FEIR analyzed a scenario that is almost certain not LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 15 to take place, and ignored what is highly likely to take place, the City violated CEQA. 16 The City further argued that "[t]he demand is also contrary to long-standing distinctions between 17 environmental impacts, on the one hand, and economic or social impacts, on the other." (AR005990.) 18 However, an EIR is still required to analyze environmental impacts related to increased enrollment and 19 propose mitigation measures. (See Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 20 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1029.) As recognized in Chawanakee, SB 50 only addresses impacts "on" a school 21 facility, and impacts "on the non-school physical environment that might result from the construction" 22 are required to be considered in the EIR. (Chawanakee, 196 Cal.App.4th at 1029.) If construction takes 23 place at locations other than the "new school" sites identified in the FEIR, more than "economic" or 24 "social" impacts are going to take place, so the City's argument does not provide an excuse for its 25 approach.
26 Based on the foregoing, the City was required to analyze the CASP's impacts on parts of the 27 physical environment that are not school facilities. The Chawanakee court made it clear that section 28 65996 does not exempt these impacts from discussion in an EIR. Thus, these changes should have been Pets?' Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended J - 18 - Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Case No. 20CV003402
1 analyzed in the FEIR, and their absence precludes both proper decision-making by the City and 2 informed participation by the public. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1); Sierra Club v. 3 State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236-37; Planning & Conservation League v. Dept. of 4 Water Resources, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 911, 920.) Therefore, this Court should issue a writ of 5 mandate requiring the City to comply with the requirements of CEQA with the CASP FEIR. 6 II. THE CITY VIOLATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS RELATED TO THE
EDUCATION OF ITS CITIZENS, WHICH CONSTITUTES INDEPENDENT GROUNDS 7 TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDATE.
8 It is well-settled that "It]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and 9 development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements." (Citizens of 10 Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) A project is consistent with a General 11 Plan "if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not 2 obstruct their attainment." (Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Fax (831) 646-1801 13 Cal.App.4th 985, 994) It is "the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency" that are the 14 LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 crucial elements of this analysis. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of 5 Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341.) When a violated policy is Tel (831) 646-1501
6 "fundamental, mandatory, [and] clear," it is more likely that a court will conclude that a project has 17 violated the consistency doctrine. (Id. at 1342.)
18 As set forth in the Petition, there are several General Plan goals and policies that are relevant to the City's interaction with the local school districts. General Plan Goal LU-9 states that the City will 20 "(w)ork with local school districts and other educational organizations to ensure that a level of public 21 education is provided that meets community educational needs." (Linden Decl., Ex. A; RJN, Nos. 2-6.) 22 The General Plan policies with respect to the impacts of proposed projects on school facilities and 23 enrollment are Policy LU-9.1 (work in partnership with local school districts and assist them in 24 identifying land needed for new school sites so that sufficient facilities are provided for students) and 25 Policy LU-9.2 (consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when acting on 26 annexation applications to ensure that public services and facilities service standards identified in Table 27 LU-4 are met). (Linden Decl., Ex. A.) Table LU-4 of the General Plan states that the service standard 28 for "EDUCATION" is that school sites shall be "identified and donated concurrently with new Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 19 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 development in compliance with SB 50 requirements and any applicable law." (Linden Decl., Ex. B.) 2 Also, Housing Element Policy H-1.2 states as follows: "New residential developments shall be 3 adequately served by services and facilities, including park and recreation areas, libraries, sanitary and 4 storm sewers, transportation, public safety and other services. Ensure impact fees are adequate to 5 provide these services and facilities to residential development." (Linden Decl., Ex. C.) 6 In this case, the CASP directly violates the General Plan's fundamental and mandatory 7 requirements related to schools. (Linden Decl., Exs. A-C.) First, representing that the developers will 8 pay developer fees does nothing to "(work with local school districts" because the developers would 9 already be required by SB 50 to pay these fees. As set forth above, the mere payment of developer fees 10 is not going to "ensure that a level of public education is provided that meets community educational 11 needs." Instead, the Districts are left without the ability to do long-term planning, and will have to 12 scramble to react to whatever the WASP presents with respect to the influx of students, which due to the 13 lack of project phasing cannot be predicted. (AR005990-91.) For this reason, simply identifying land 14 for new sites in the CASP does not adequately meet the dictate in Policy LU-9.1 that "sufficient LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 15 facilities are provided for students." (Linden Decl., Ex. A.) Additionally, the CASP violates the Tel (831) 646-1501
16 requirement that impacts on school enrollment and facilities be considered because it only considers the 17 unlikely scenario of multiple new schools being built. (AR019197.) As the CASP clearly violates the 18 General Plan, a writ of mandate should be issued compelling the City to vacate its approval of CASP 19 and requiring the City to comply with the General Plan with respect to any renewed approval. 20 Ill. CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ISSUANCE OF WRIT RELIEF TO THE
DISTRICTS, THE COURT SHOULD ALSO ISSUE JUDGMENT AWARDING DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
22 The Fourth Cause of Action in the FAP is for declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil 23 Procedure section 1060, where a court may issue a binding declaration as to the rights and duties of the 24 parties to the litigation. (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Assoc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1401-02; Las 25 Tunas Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015.) The 26 Fifth Cause of Action in the FAP is for injunctive relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 27 526, which states that an injunction may be granted "[when it appears by the complaint or affidavits 28 //I
Pets.' Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 20 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or 2 irreparable injury to a party to the action." (Id., § 526, subd. (a)(1).) 3 In this case, declaratory and injunctive relief are warranted so as to properly implement the 4 Court's order on the Motion for Judgment, issued on July 7, 2022. In this order, the Court included the 5 following provision regarding the CASP approvals other than the FEIR:
6 7
8 9
Court agrees this would be an acceptable protective provision. 10 (Order at 22:11-22, emphasis added.)
11 Based on the Court's order on the Motion for Judgment, a declaratory relief order is warranted to 12 clarify that while the City can process development applications, until such time that the FEIR has Fax (831) 646-1801 13
"become final" based on compliance with the directives contained in a writ of mandate no such 14 LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 approvals can "become effective" such that physical development and construction can commence. 15 Tel 831) 646-1501 Similarly, an injunction should be issued to enjoin the City from allowing individual development a
projects to move forward until such time that the FEIR has been re-certified and has become final. 17 CONCLUSION
18 Based on the foregoing, the Districts respectfully request that the Court grant the FAP and issue 19 a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the City to comply with CEQA with respect to the 20 preparation of any EIR for the Project, accompanied by appropriate declaratory relief and an injunction 21 or stay concerning construction activities inside the CASP pending the City's compliance with the writ. 22 Dated: August 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
23 LOZANO SMITH
24 25
SLOAN R. SIMMONS
26 MEGAN E. MACY
XMICHAEL R. LINDEN
27 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
28 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and
SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Pets? Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 21- AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I, Michael R. Linden, counsel for the Districts hereby certify, under Local Rule 15.06 that I 3 prepared the foregoing memorandum of points and authorities on behalf of my client, and that the word 4 count for this briefing is 6,829 which does not include the cover, the tables, signature blocks, or this 5 certification. I certify that I prepared this document in Microsoft Office® Word 2013, and that this is 6 the word count generated for this document.
7 Dated: August 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
8 LOZANO SMITH
10 MICHAEL R. LINDEN
Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
SANTA RITA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and
SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOZANO SMITH 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, CA 93940-5758 Tel (831) 646-1501 Fax (831) 646-1801 17 8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Pets.? Opening Brief in Supp, of First Amended - 22 -
AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas
Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Stephen Scudder am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 7404 N. Spalding Avenue, Fresno, California 93720. My email address is [email protected]. 4 On August 5, 2022, I served the attached PETITIONERS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR 5 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the interested parties in said cause, by causing delivery to be made by the mode of service indicated below:
Christopher A. Callihan Attorney for Respondent, City of Salinas 7 City Attorney
Michael Mutalpassi
8 Asst. City Attorney
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Email: [email protected]
10 [email protected]
11 James Moose, Esq. Attorney for Respondent, City of Salinas Remy Moose Manley
CA 93940-5758 12 555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
13 Email: [email protected]
(831) [email protected]
214
LOZANO SMITH Attorney for Real Parties in Interest
Brian Finegan, Esq.
15 Michael Harrington
Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey, Finegan & Harrington, LLP 60 W. Alisal St., Ste. 1
Salinas, CA 93901
Tel • 17 Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
18 Joel Franklin
Law Offices of Joel Franklin
19 225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407
Carmel, CA 93923-8674
20 Email: [email protected]
21 [X] (Regular U.S. Mail) on all parties in said action in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for 22 outgoing mail, addressed as set forth above, at Lozano Smith, which mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of postage and is deposited at the Post Office that same day, in the ordinary 23 course of business, in a United States mailbox in the County of Fresno. 24 [X] (By Electronic Mail) on all parties in said action by transmitting a true and correct to the persons at the email addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 25 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 5, 2022, at Fresno, California. 27 28 Stephen Scudder
Pets? Opening Brief in Supp. of First Amended - 23 - AUSD & SUHSD v. City of Salinas Pet. for Peremptory Writ of Mandate Case No. 20CV003402
ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY
Superior Court of California,
County of Monterey
1 CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, SBN 203010 On 03/19/2024
City Attorney By Deputy: Olalia, Sonia
2 CITY OF SALINAS
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256
4 Email: [email protected]
5 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374
ELIZABETH R. POLLOCK, SBN 259645
6 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
7 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-2745
JOEL FRANKLIN, SBN 69705
10 LAW OFFICES OF JOEL FRANKLIN
225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407 EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 11 Carmel, California 93923-8674
Telephone: (831) 649-2545 [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
12 Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF SALINAS
14 [Additional counsel on next page]
15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
18 Case No. 20CV003402
ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
19 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Petitioners and Plaintiffs, PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND 20 V.
REQUEST; AND TE ROT SEDI
CITY OF SALINAS; and DOES 1 THROUGH STIPULATED JUDGMENT DENYING 10, inclusive, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
22 OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
Respondent and Defendant, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
23 RELIEF
24 BRIAN FINEGAN and DOES 1 1 THROUGH Judge: The Hon. Carrie M. Panetta 20, inclusive, Dept.: 14
25 Real Parties in Interest. Filing Date of Action: December 17, 2020 26 27
Exhibit
28 PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST; AND [PROPOSED, STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SLOAN R. SIMMONS, SBN 233752
1 MEGAN E. MACY, SBN 227002
2 LOZANO SMITH
Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
3 Monterey, CA 93940-5758
Telephone: (831)646-1501
4 Facsimile: (831) 646-1801
5 Attorneys for Petitioner
6 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
2 IT IS HERBY STIPULATED by and between Petitioner ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District" or "AUSD) and Respondent CITY OF SALINAS ("City") (collectively, the 4 "Parties") as follows:
RECITALS
6 The District's First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory 7 and Injunctive Relief ("First Amended Petition") attacked the legal adequacy of the City's approval of 8 the so-called Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP) and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.), and the Ralph M. Brown Act 11 (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seg.).
12 On December 19, 2022, the Honorable Carrie M. Panetta held a hearing in Department 13 14 of the above-captioned court on the merits of the then only remaining causes of action in the First 14 Amended Petition, at the end of which the Court took the matter under submission. 15 3. At the time of the merits hearing on the First Amended Petition, the Court was aware of parallel litigation against the City entitled, Santa Rita Union School District et al. v. City of Salinas, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242, which involved very similar, almost 18 identical, CEQA issues aimed at a different specific plan located immediately west of the CASP area, the so-called West Area Specific Plan ("WASP"). Judge Marla O. Anderson of the Monterey County 20 Superior Court previously ruled against the City in that parallel case, but the Real Parties in Interest 21 appealed. Judge Panetta was aware that the ultimate outcome of the appeal in the WASP litigation 22 could very well affect the ultimate outcome in the instant (CASP) litigation. Indeed, the Judge asked 23 counsel for AUSD and the City during the merits hearing on the First Amended Petition whether their 24 clients might be willing to stay the Court's time frame for issuing a decision until such time as the 25 Court of Appeal had issued its decision on the WASP EIR. Near the end of the hearing, counsel 26 committed to raise this issue with their respective clients and get back to the Court. 27 111
28 3
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND PROPOSED| STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 4. On January 18, 2023, AUSD filed a document entitled, Petitioner's Notice Regarding 2 Proposed Stay of Proceedings, which informed the Court that the City had declined to agree to a stay. 3 On March 10, 2023, the Court issued an Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate 4 and Request for Declaratory Relief ("Order"), which granted the First Amended Petition as to the 5 CEQA cause of action but denied it with respect to the Planning and Zoning Law cause of action. On 6 the CEQA issues, Judge Panetta's ruling generally followed the approach taken by Judge Anderson in the earlier ruling in the WASP litigation.
8 6. On April 21, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of AUSD and against the City 9 based on the Order.
10 7. On May 11, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Appeal, commencing Court of Appeal Case No. H051077.
12 8. On November 15, 2023, the Sixth District Court of Appeal's decision in Santa Rita 13 School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298 (the WASP case) became final and 14 enforceable as a binding legal precedent when the California Supreme Court denied a Petition for 15 Review and Request for Depublication filed by Plaintiff/Respondent Santa Rita Union School District. 16 On December 21, 2023, AUSD and the City together filed with the Superior Court a 17 document entitled, Joint Request for Case Management Conference to Facilitate Settlement. In that document, the Parties requested the Court schedule an informal case management conference ("CMC") 19 at which the Parties could explain why they were asking the Court to use its inherent powers to reverse 20 | its April 21, 2023, judgment in favor of AUSD and to issue in its stead a stipulated judgment in favor of 21 the City. In making this request, the Parties urged that the precedent set in Santa Rita School District v. 22 City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App. 5th 298 was dispositive in light of the factual and legal similarities 23 between the WASP and CASP cases.
24 10. On January 18, 2024, the Court conducted the requested CMC and listened to discussion 25 | by the Parties in favor of a stipulated reversal. The Court indicated that it was favorably disposed 26 towards the Parties' proposal to resolve the CASP litigation through a stipulated reversal. 27 28
4 PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED! STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 11. On January 21, 2024, the Court of Appeal sent notice to the parties of the completion 2 and filing of the record on appeal in this case.
3 12. On February 6, 2024, the Superior Court held a follow-up CMC after having received draft copies of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and this Proposed Stipulated Judgment. The court indicated that it remained favorably disposed towards the concept of a stipulated reversal and did not 6 request that the Parties alter any wording within the two draft documents submitted to her. 7 13. On February 7, 2024, the Parties executed a settlement resolving this matter, including 8 inter alia as to the dismissal of the appeal in this case, the submittal of an agreed upon stipulated judgment to the Court set forth herein, and to forgo any right to appeal the stipulated judgment. 10 14. On February 8, 2024, the City filed with the Court of Appeal a request for dismissal of 11 Case No. H051077; and on February 13, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur, returning 12 jurisdiction to the superior court.
13 15. The Parties agree that the Court has the inherent authority to modify its previously- 14 issued judgment, even absent any direction to do so from the Court of Appeal and even after the 15 expiration of timelines for the kinds of motions by which a party that has lost on the merits can seek a 16 different outcome, such as motions for reconsideration, for vacation of judgment, for a new trial, or for 17 relief from judgment based on surprise (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1008, 663, 657, 659, & 473, subd. (b)). 18 16. The Parties further agree that Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), 19 recognizes every court's inherent power to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make 20 them conform to law and justice." This statutory language "'is consistent with and codifies the courts' 21 traditional and inherent judicial power to do whatever is necessary and appropriate, in the absence of 22 controlling legislation, to ensure the prompt, fair, and orderly administration of justice."" (Kinney v. 23 Clark (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 724, 740.) "I]t is well settled that independent of statutory provisions a 24 I trial court has the inherent power on its own motion to correct mistakes in its proceedings and within a 25 reasonable time to annul its orders and judgments inadvertently made." (Burbank v. Continental Life 26| Ins. Co. (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 664, 667.)
27|111
28 5
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED! STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 17. The Parties further agree that, Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides that 2 "[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court 3 or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of 4 this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, 5 any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the 6 spirit of this Code."
7 18. The Parties further note that, Government Code section 68070 provides that "[e]very 8 court may make rules for its own government... not inconsistent with law or with the rules adopted 9 and prescribed by the Judicial Council." (See also Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-1377 ["California courts have fashioned new forms of procedures when required to deal with the rights of the parties and to manage the caseload of the court"]; People v. Eggers (1947) 30 Cal.2d 676, 692 [trial court "has jurisdiction to modify, revoke, or set its orders aside"]; In re Scoggins (2001) 94 13| Cal.App.4th 650, 658 ["trial court has inherent power to modify or set aside its pronounced judgment if 14 ... execution of its terms has not commenced"]; and People v. Hales (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 507, 508 15|| ["[t]he trial court does have power and authority to vacate its judgment in criminal matters on proper 16 showing"].)
17 STIPULATED JUDGMENT
18 NOW, THEREFORE, having reviewed Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.Sth 298, having heard the Parties' positions in favor of the Court's inherent power to reverse its original judgment despite any lack of direction to do so by the Court of Appeal, and 21 having received jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal via a remittitur in the above-entitled action in 22 response to the City's request for dismissal of its appeal from the earlier April 21, 2023, judgment in 23 this case, the Court hereby ADJUDGES, ORDERS, AND DECREES as follows:
24 Under the circumstances, in which the Parties have jointly requested the reversal of an earlier 25 judgment based on new dispositive precedent not in existence when the earlier judgment was entered, 26 the Court determines that it has the inherent authority to make such a change. 27|111
28 6
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 The reversal of the prior judgment for the District in favor of a new judgment for the City 2 represents a legally appropriate and just outcome in light of the binding legal principles set forth in Santa Rita School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298. Requiring the City to pursue its appeal in order to obtain from the Court of Appeal both a decision on the merits and a directive requiring this Court to reverse its judgment of April 21, 2023, would lead to a waste of time and resources both in the Court of Appeal and for the Parties, which would have to pay their attorneys for 7 their time spent on appellate briefing and oral argument. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment entered in Petitioner's favor on April 21, 2023, is 9 hereby vacated.
10 Based upon Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, the 11|| Court denies the CEQA Cause of Action in the First Amended Petition and enters Judgment in favor of 12 the City on all Causes of Action. Based upon this conclusion and the denial of the other causes of 13 action in the First Amended Petition, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the City and against the 14 District.
15 This stipulated judgment incorporates by reference the terms of the Parties' Settlement 16 Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
17 Each side shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 18 IT IS SO ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED.
20 Dated: March, 19,2024
Judge of the Superior Court
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 7
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
EXHIBIT 1
1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 8
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSBOLSTIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"') is made by and between Petitioner Alisal Union School District ("AUSD" or "District") and Respondent City of Salinas ("City"), referred to together herein as "the Parties" or individually as "Party." The purpose of the Agreement is to resolve all claims, issues, disputes, and appeals between the Parties at issue the litigation entitled, Alisal Union School District v. City of Salinas et al. (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402; Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No. H051077) ("CASP Litigation").
1. RECITALS
1. On November 17, 2020, the City Council for the City of Salinas approved, and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for, a specific plan known as the Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP"). (See Gov. Code, § 65450 [provisions dealing with specific plans].)
2. On December 17, 2020, AUSD and Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD) filed a Petition for Writ for Administrative and/or Traditional Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("CASP Petition"), initiating the CASP Litigation. (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402.) The CASP Petition raised contentions under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resource Code, § 21000 et seq.), the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.), and the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). Most relevant, the CASP Petition argued that the City's EIR for the CASP was inadequate for failing to address potential environmental impacts on schools.
3. The legal claims, issues, and arguments in the CASP Petition were very similar or identical to those raised in an existing lawsuit then pending against the City and various real parties in interest, filed by both SUHSD and the Santa Rita Unified School District (SRUSD), challenging the adequacy the City's EIR for the West Area Specific Plan ("WASP"), located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the CASP. (Santa Rita Union School District et al. v. City of Salinas, Monterey County Superior Court Case No.: 20CV000242 ["WASP Litigation"].)
4. On June 23, 2021, after a hearing on the merits of the WASP Litigation, the Monterey County Superior Court issued an "Order Granting Petitioners' Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief." Therein, Judge Marla O. Anderson rejected a claim based on the Planning and Zoning Law but determined that the WASP Final EIR was insufficient under CEQA "because the DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4 FEIR failed to include discussion of potential off-site environmental impacts resulting from the WASP due to Petitioner school districts' presented concerns that [they] will lack sufficient funding to build the proposed new school sites identified within the WASP.
The FEIR also failed to adequately respond to comments made by Petitioners with regard to potential off-site impacts. As such, Respondent failed to proceed in accordance with the law under CEQA." This order was subsequently reduced to judgment on January 18, 2022. On February 8, 2022, Real Parties in Interest in the WASP Litigation filed a Notice of Appeal.
5. On December 14, 2022, the City reached a settlement agreement with SUHSD, by which the latter agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice, leaving SRUSD to prosecute the CASP Litigation on its own.
6. On December 19, 2022, the superior court held a hearing on the merits of the CASP Litigation (i.e., on the CEQA and Planning and Zoning Law claims). Near the end of the hearing, Judge Carrie M. Panetta expressed her awareness of the pending appeal in the WASP Litigation and asked the City and AUSD if they might be willing to stipulate to a stay of the court's time frame for issuing a decision on the merits, so as to give the court and the Parties time to await a decision from the Court of Appeal in the WASP Litigation. On January 18, 2023, AUSD made a filing with the superior court which informed the court that the City would not agree to the stay proposed by the court.
On March 13, 2023, the superior court issued its decision on the merits in the CASP case via an "Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory Relief." Although Judge Panetta found in the City's favor on AUSD's Planning and Zoning Law claims, she found CEQA problems with the EIR similar to those previously identified by Judge Anderson for the EIR in the WASP Litigation.
Consistent with an earlier June 7, 2022 ruling by the Court on the City's Motion for Judgment, however, the court did not order the City to void its EIR certification resolution or any of its project approvals or other actions.
On April 21, 2023, the superior court entered judgment based on its recent Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory Relief.
9. On May 11, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Appeal in the CASP Litigation.
10. On August 10, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion in the WASP Litigation, finding the City's EIR to be legally adequate under CEQA and reversing the superior court's judgment in favor of SRUSD. At the end of the opinion, the 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4 Court of Appeal stated that, "[o]n remand, the trial court is directed to (1) vacate its order granting the Districts' mandate petition as to the first and fifth causes of action; (2) enter a new order and judgment denying the petition in full; and (3) recall the writ of mandate." The appellate opinion in the WASP Litigation subsequently became final.
11. Counsel for the City and AUSD reached conceptual agreement on a framework intended to finalize the CASP litigation with a minimum of additional financial expenditures. Counsel understood that the specific terms of a full-blown settlement agreement still had to be drafted. The Parties understood that the terms of the conceptualized settlement must account for the fact that, at the time the final Settlement Agreement would be finalized, the City would still be facing an adverse trial court judgment in the CASP Litigation and would still be pursuing an appeal seeking to overturn that judgment. The Parties were also aware that, given the Court of Appeal decision in Santa Rita School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, the City was very likely to prevail in its appeal, with the foreseeable result that the superior court judgment in the CASP Litigation would be reversed and entered in the City's favor.
12. On January 18, 2024, in response to a Joint Request by the Parties, Judge Panetta of the Superior Court held an informal case management conference to discuss the issues raised therein, including the Parties' proposed framework for closing out the CASP Litigation. During that conference, the court indicated its willingness to reverse its original judgment and to enter instead a stipulated judgment. The court's assurances allowed the Parties to proceed with the settlement strategy contained herein.
This Settlement Agreement builds on the conceptual agreement described in Paragraph 11 above and has been finalized after the Parties spoke with Judge Panetta on January 18, 2024.
Il.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement.
2. Joint Request for Stipulated Judgment. The Parties will file with the Monterey County Superior Court a Joint Request and Stipulated Judgment with the intent that, upon the issuance of a remittitur from the Sixth District Court of Appeal in response to the City's request for the dismissal of its appeal in AUSD v. City of Salinas (Court of Appeal Case No. H051077), the Superior Court will vacate its judgment entered on April 21, 2023, in Superior Court Case. No. 20CV003402 and will enter in its stead the 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4 Stipulated Judgment memorializing the terms of this Agreement. The Joint Request and Stipulated Judgment shall be in a form substantially identical to Exhibit A attached hereto.
3. City Dismissal of Appeal. After this joint filing, the City will request that the Court of Appeal dismiss that appeal under Rule 8.244, subdivisions (c)(1) and (2), of the California Rules of Court.
4. AUSD Agreement not to Appeal from Stipulated Judgment. AUSD agrees not to file an appeal from, or support any attempt by any third party to seek relief from, the Stipulated Judgment.
5. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and litigation costs in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402 and Court of Appeal Case No. H051077.
6. Execution and Effective Date. This Agreement shall be executed by the Parties as indicated below. This Agreement shall become binding and effective upon the execution by the signatories and thereafter upon ratification by both the AUSD Board of Trustees and the City Council of the City of Salinas or an individual officer within the City to whom the City Council has delegated ratification authority.
7. No Admission of Liability. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims and that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability by any Party.
8. Enforcement of this Agreement and Attorneys' Fees & Costs Therefor. This Agreement and its individual terms and conditions shall be enforced, if necessary, by the filing of a Motion with the Monterey County Superior Court in Case No. 20CV003402 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and shall be subject to normal law and motion deadlines, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
Any such Motion shall be preceded by a good faith attempt by the Parties to meet and confer and therefore obviate the need for a Motion. If such a Motion is filed and pursued in the superior court, the prevailing Party (whether in pursuit of, or opposition to, the Motion) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses, including expert witness fees, incurred in connection with such action or proceeding.
Representation by Counsel. Each of the Parties acknowledges and agrees that it has been represented by independent legal counsel of its own choice 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4 throughout the negotiation of this Agreement and that the Party is executing this Agreement having had sufficient opportunity to investigate the facts and obtain advice of such counsel.
10. Voluntary Agreement. Each Party affirms and acknowledges that it has read, fully appreciates, and understands the words, terms, and provisions of this Agreement, is entirely satisfied with the settlement described, and has duly executed this Agreement voluntarily and of its full free will and accord.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402 and Court of Appeal Case No. H051077. No other promises, agreements, or statements between the Parties shall be binding unless made in writing and signed by all Parties hereto.
12. Amendments. This Agreement cannot be changed or supplemented orally and may be modified or superseded only by written instrument executed by all Parties.
13. Interpretation. Each of the Parties acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement is to be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and not in favor of or against any of the Parties as drafting entity or otherwise.
14. Other Documents. The Parties hereby agree to execute all such other documents and to take all such other action as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
15. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of California.
16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining portions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Warranty of Authority. Each of the persons signing this Agreement represents and warrants that such person has been duly authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the Party indicated, and each of the Parties by signing this Agreement warrants and represents that such party is legally authorized and entitled to enter into this Agreement.
5 18. Binding Effect. This Agreement is for the benefit of an shall be binding on all Parties and their successors, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, partnerships, employees, attorneys, insurers sureties, agents, representatives, directors, officers, receivers, trustees, and/or stockholders.
19. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and, subject to the ratification requirements of paragraph 6 herein, shall be deemed legally effective at such time as counterparts thereof duly executed on behalf of all Parties have been furnished and delivered to the attorneys for the Parties to this Agreement. Signed copies and facsimile versions of this Agreement shall have the same force and effect as signature of the original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed the Agreement as dated below.
Dated: February 6, 2024 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:
Jim Koenig, Superintenden
Dated: _ 2024 CITY OF SALINAS
B jim Pia, Interim City Manager
Dated: ,2024 CITY OF SALINAS
By:
- Kimbley Craig, Mayor of Salinas
Approved as to form:
Dated: Februery b, 2024 LOZANO SMITH
Sloan R. Simmons
Attorneys for District
6 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBBDA6D5-A733-40BA-9245-1A517B229F87
18. Binding Effect. This Agreement is for the benefit of an shall be binding on all Parties and their successors, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, partnerships, employees, attorneys, insurers sureties, agents, representatives, directors, officers, receivers, trustees, and/or stockholders.
19. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and, subject to the ratification requirements of paragraph 6 herein, shall be deemed legally effective at such time as counterparts thereof duly executed on behalf of all Parties have been furnished and delivered to the attorneys for the Parties to this Agreement. Signed copies and facsimile versions of this Agreement shall have the same force and effect as signature of the original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed the Agreement as dated below.
Dated: 2024 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:_
Jim Koenig, Superintendent
2/6/2024 | 1:50 PM PST
Dated: , 2024 CITY OF SALINAS
- DocuSigned by:
im Pia, Interim City Manage
2/7/2024 | 11:48 AM PST
Dated: , 2024 CITY OF SALINAS
-DocuSigned by:
1e me is Mayor of Salinas
Approved as to form:
Dated: , 2024 LOZANO SMITH
By:
Sloan R. Simmons
Attorneys for District
6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4 2/6/2024 | 1:29 PM PST
Dated: , 2024 CITY SESALINAS
Br: Christopuer A. Calliban
Christopher A. Callihan
Attorney for City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E34CD42-ABE8-42BC-9652-02654CBAC5D4
EXHIBIT A
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST; AND [PROPOSEDI
STIPULATED JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
1 CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, SBN 203010
City Attorney
CITY OF SALINAS
200 Lincoln Avenue
3 Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256
4 Email: [email protected]
5 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374
ELIZABETH R. POLLOCK, SBN 259645
6 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
7 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-2745
8 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
10 JOEL FRANKLIN, SBN 69705
LAW OFFICES OF JOEL FRANKLIN
225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407
11 Carmel, California 93923-8674 EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES Telephone: (831) 649-2545 (GOVERNMENT CODE 8 6103]
12 Email: [email protected]
13 Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF SALINAS
15 [Additional counsel on next page]
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
18 Case No. 20CV003402
19 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
20 V.
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND
21 CITY OF SALINAS; and DOES 1 THROUGH REQUEST; AND [PROPOSED]
STIPULATED JUDGMENT DENYING
10, inclusive, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
22 OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
23 Respondent and Defendant, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
24 2D, LAN BINEGAN and DOES 1I THROUGH Judge: The Hon. Carrie M. Panetta 25 Dept.: 14
26 Real Parties in Interest.
Filing Date of Action: December 17, 2020
27 28
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST; AND [PROPOSED| STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SLOAN R. SIMMONS, SBN 233752
1 MEGAN E. MACY, SBN 227002
LOZANO SMITH
2 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
3 Monterey, CA 93940-5758
Telephone: (831)646-1501
4 Facsimile: (831) 646-1801
5 Attorneys for Petitioner
ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 2
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
2 IT IS HERBY STIPULATED by and between Petitioner ALISAL UNION SCHOOL 3 DISTRICT ("District" or "AUSD") and Respondent CITY OF SALINAS ("City") (collectively, the 4 "Parties") as follows:
RECITALS
6 The District's First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory 7 and Injunctive Relief ("First Amended Petition") attacked the legal adequacy of the City's approval of the so-called Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP") and the accompanying Environmental Impact 9 Report ("EIR") under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 10 ("CEQA"), the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.), and the Ralph M. Brown Act 11 (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.).
12 On December 19, 2022, the Honorable Carrie M. Panetta held a hearing in Department 13 14 of the above-captioned court on the merits of the then only remaining causes of action in the First 14 Amended Petition, at the end of which the Court took the matter under submission. 15 3. At the time of the merits hearing on the First Amended Petition, the Court was aware of parallel litigation against the City entitled, Santa Rita Union School District et al. v. City of Salinas, 17 Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000242, which involved very similar, almost 18 identical, CEQA issues aimed at a different specific plan located immediately west of the CASP area, 19 the so-called West Area Specific Plan ("WASP"). Judge Marla O. Anderson of the Monterey County 20 Superior Court previously ruled against the City in that parallel case, but the Real Parties in Interest 21 appealed. Judge Panetta was aware that the ultimate outcome of the appeal in the WASP litigation 22 could very well affect the ultimate outcome in the instant (CASP) litigation. Indeed, the Judge asked 23 counsel for AUSD and the City during the merits hearing on the First Amended Petition whether their 24 clients might be willing to stay the Court's time frame for issuing a decision until such time as the 25 Court of Appeal had issued its decision on the WASP EIR. Near the end of the hearing, counsel 26 committed to raise this issue with their respective clients and get back to the Court. 27/1/
28 3
PARTIES JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 On January 18, 2023, AUSD filed a document entitled, Petitioner's Notice Regarding Proposed Stay of Proceedings, which informed the Court that the City had declined to agree to a stay. 3 On March 10, 2023, the Court issued an Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate and Request for Declaratory Relief ("Order"), which granted the First Amended Petition as to the CEQA cause of action but denied it with respect to the Planning and Zoning Law cause of action. On the CEQA issues, Judge Panetta's ruling generally followed the approach taken by Judge Anderson in 7 the earlier ruling in the WASP litigation.
8 6. On April 21, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of AUSD and against the City 9 based on the Order.
10 7. On May 11, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Appeal, commencing Court of Appeal Case 11 No. H051077.
12 On November 15, 2023, the Sixth District Court of Appeal's decision in Santa Rita 13 School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298 (the WASP case) became final and 14 enforceable as a binding legal precedent when the California Supreme Court denied a Petition for 15 Review and Request for Depublication filed by Plaintiff/Respondent Santa Rita Union School District. 16 9. On December 21, 2023, AUSD and the City together filed with the Superior Court a 17 document entitled, Joint Request for Case Management Conference to Facilitate Settlement. In that 18 document, the Parties requested the Court schedule an informal case management conference ("CMC") 19 at which the Parties could explain why they were asking the Court to use its inherent powers to reverse 20 its April 21, 2023, judgment in favor of AUSD and to issue in its stead a stipulated judgment in favor of 21 the City. In making this request, the Parties urged that the precedent set in Santa Rita School District v. 22 City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298 was dispositive in light of the factual and legal similarities 23 between the WASP and CASP cases.
24 10. On January 18, 2024, the Court conducted the requested CMC and listened to discussion 25 by the Parties in favor of a stipulated reversal. The Court indicated that it was favorably disposed 26 towards the Parties' proposal to resolve the CASP litigation through a stipulated reversal. 27 28 4
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 11. On January 21, 2024, the Court of Appeal sent notice to the parties of the completion 2 and filing of the record on appeal in this case.
3 12. On February 6, 2024, the Superior Court held a follow-up CMC after having received 4 draft copies of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and this Proposed Stipulated Judgment. The court 5 indicated that it remained favorably disposed towards the concept of a stipulated reversal and did not 6 request that the Parties alter any wording within the two draft documents submitted to her. 7 13. On February _ 2024, the Parties executed a settlement resolving this matter, including inter alia as to the dismissal of the appeal in this case, the submittal of an agreed upon stipulated 9 judgment to the Court set forth herein, and to forgo any right to appeal the stipulated judgment. 10 14. On February _ 2024, the City filed with the Court of Appeal a request for dismissal of 11 Case No. H051077; and on , 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur, returning 12 jurisdiction to the superior court.
13 15. The Parties agree that the Court has the inherent authority to modify its previously- 14 issued judgment, even absent any direction to do so from the Court of Appeal and even after the 15 expiration of timelines for the kinds of motions by which a party that has lost on the merits can seek a 16 different outcome, such as motions for reconsideration, for vacation of judgment, for a new trial, or for 17 relief from judgment based on surprise (see Code Civ. Proc., 8§ 1008, 663, 657, 659, & 473, subd. (b)). 18 16. The Parties further agree that Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), 19 recognizes every court's inherent power to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make 20 them conform to law and justice." This statutory language "is consistent with and codifies the courts' 21 traditional and inherent judicial power to do whatever is necessary and appropriate, in the absence of 22 controlling legislation, to ensure the prompt, fair, and orderly administration of justice.'" (Kinney v. 23 Clark (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 724, 740.) "[I]t is well settled that independent of statutory provisions a 24 trial court has the inherent power on its own motion to correct mistakes in its proceedings and within a 25 reasonable time to annul its orders and judgments inadvertently made." (Burbank v. Continental Life 26 Ins. Co. (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 664, 667.)
27| /11
28 5
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 17. The Parties further agree that, Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides that "when jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of 4 this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the 6 spirit of this Code."
7 18. The Parties further note that, Government Code section 68070 provides that "[e]very 8 court may make rules for its own government... not inconsistent with law or with the rules adopted 9 and prescribed by the Judicial Council." (See also Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 10 1376-1377 ["California courts have fashioned new forms of procedures when required to deal with the 11 rights of the parties and to manage the caseload of the court"]; People v. Eggers (1947) 30 Cal.2d 676, 12 692 [trial court "has jurisdiction to modify, revoke, or set its orders aside"]; In re Scoggins (2001) 94 13 Cal.App.4th 650, 658 ["trial court has inherent power to modify or set aside its pronounced judgment if 14 ... execution of its terms has not commenced"]; and People v. Hales (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 507, 508 15 ["[t]he trial court does have power and authority to vacate its judgment in criminal matters on proper 16 showing"].)
17 STIPULATED JUDGMENT
18 NOW, THEREFORE, having reviewed Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas 19(2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, having heard the Parties' positions in favor of the Court's inherent power 20 to reverse its original judgment despite any lack of direction to do so by the Court of Appeal, and 21 having received jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal via a remittitur in the above-entitled action in 22 response to the City's request for dismissal of its appeal from the earlier April 21, 2023, judgment in 23 this case, the Court hereby ADJUDGES, ORDERS, AND DECREES as follows:
24 Under the circumstances, in which the Parties have jointly requested the reversal of an earlier 25 judgment based on new dispositive precedent not in existence when the earlier judgment was entered, 26 the Court determines that it has the inherent authority to make such a change. 27 111
28 PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 The reversal of the prior judgment for the District in favor of a new judgment for the City 2 represents a legally appropriate and just outcome in light of the binding legal principles set forth in 3 Santa Rita School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298. Requiring the City to pursue 4 its appeal in order to obtain from the Court of Appeal both a decision on the merits and a directive 5 requiring this Court to reverse its judgment of April 21, 2023, would lead to a waste of time and 6 resources both in the Court of Appeal and for the Parties, which would have to pay their attorneys for 7 their time spent on appellate briefing and oral argument. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment entered in Petitioner's favor on April 21, 2023, is 9 hereby vacated.
10 Based upon Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, the 11 Court denies the CEQA Cause of Action in the First Amended Petition and enters Judgment in favor of 12 the City on all Causes of Action. Based upon this conclusion and the denial of the other causes of 13 action in the First Amended Petition, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the City and against the 14 District.
15 This stipulated judgment incorporates by reference the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Each side shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 18 IT IS SO ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED.
19 20 Dated: 2024
The Honorable Carrie M. Panetta
21 Judge of the Superior Court
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 7
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
EXHIBIT 1
1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
2 3
5 6
8 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
201
21 22
24 26
28 8
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST: AND [PROPOSED| STIPULAT ED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas 1 Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 1, Kaitlyn E. Hubbard, am employed in the County of Sacramento. My business address is 555 4 Capitol Mall, Suite 800, Sacramento, California 95814, and email address is 5 [email protected]. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action.
6 I am familiar with Remy Moose Manley, LLP's practice for collection and processing mail whereby mail is sealed, given the appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area.
Each day mail is collected and deposited in a USPS mailbox after the close of each business day. 8 9 On the date set forth below, I served the following:
10 PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST; AND [PROPOSED] STIPULATED
JUDGMENT DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
12 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL by causing a true copy thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope, 13 with postage fully prepaid, addressed to the following person(s) or representatives) as listed below, and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. 14 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by causing a true copy thereof to be electronically 15 delivered to the following person(s) or representatives) at the email addresses) listed below, via the Court's approved electronic filing service provider. I did not receive any electronic 16 message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION By submitting an electronic version of the 18 documents) to OneLegal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. 19 BY PERSONAL SERVICE by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-delivered to the 20 following person(s) or representative(s) at the addresses) listed below. 21 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14t* day of February 2024, at Sacramento, California.
23 24 Stand
25 Kaitlyn Hubbard
26 27
28 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Alisal Union School District, et al.v. City of Salinas
1 Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402
2 SERVICE LIST
3 Sloan R. Simmons Counsel for Petitioners,
4 ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and SALINAS
Megan Macy
LOZANO SMITH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
5 4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Ste. 200
6 Monterey, CA 93940-5748
[email protected]
[email protected]
8 Christopher A. Callihan Co-Counsel for Respondent,
CITY OF SALINAS
9 CITY OF SALINAS
10 200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
= Phone: (831) 758-7256
12 Email: [email protected]
JOEL FRANKLIN Co-Counsel for Respondent,
LAW OFFICES OF JOEL FRANKLIN CITY OF SALINAS
14 225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407
Carmel, California 93923-8674
15 Phone: (831) 649-2545
Email: [email protected]
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 2
PROOF OF SERVICE
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS,
CAPACITY, AND CAPITAL FUNDING
IN ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
OCTOBER 24TH, 2022
PARTNERS
Prepared by
JCJ Partners
Exhibit i70)
This page was intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INCLUDING CASP IMPACTS
EXISTING & AVAILABLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 2
IMPACTS SUMMARY 3
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 4 CAPITAL FUNDS CONCLUSIONS 5
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 6 Introduction and Purpose
Enrollment Trends
Chart I
Chart 2
Enrollment Trends in 4 Schools Nearest to CASP
Birth Trends 10
0 Chart 3
Student Generation from CASP Project
Student Generation Rates 11
Table 1
CASP Project Student Generation 12
Table 2 12
Historical & Projected Enrollment 13
Form 50-01 Projection Scenarios
JCJ Partners Cohort Projection Scenarios 13
Chart 4 14
Chart 5 16
District-Reported Existing Capacity by Source 17
Table 3 18
Calculated Capacity Based on Classroom Loading Standards 18 Table 4 19
Summary & Analysis of Available Capacity 20
Short-Term Available Capacity 20
Chart 6 20
Existing Capacity at Schools Nearest to CASP 21
Chart 7 21
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTION 22 Capital Budget 22
State Funding 22
Background 22
Future Bonds 23
2022-23 State Budget and Future Budget Surplus 24
State Funding Eligibility 24
Potential Grants for Future New Construction 25
Developer Fees 26
Background 26
Developer Fee Sharing Agreement 27
Current Developer Fees 27
Table 5 27
Table 6 28
Bonding Capacity 29
Impact of Development of CASP on Bonding Capacity 29
Table 7 30
Summary and Significance of Findings 31
State Funding 31
GO Bonds & Project AV 31
Developer Fees 32
Available Funds for Future Facilities 33
Table 8 34
Conclusion 34
INFORMATION & MATERIALS REVIEWED 35
EXHIBITS 38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/24/2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION 1:
BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT
• 1. The Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP" or "Project") currently proposes the construction of approximately 3,534 dwelling units on the Eastern edge of Salinas, CA.
2. These units will be served by the Alisal Union [Elementary] School District ("District" or "AUSD" or "Alisal USD") for Pre-K through 6th grade.
3. The District enrolled 7,851 students in the 2021-22 school year. Enrollment has declined by 1,431 students from the peak of 9,282 total students in 2015-16.
4. Birth rates in the District area have declined by 18.6% fiom 2010 to 2020, a larger decrease than the county overall (-17.2%) and the statewide birth rate (-17.6%) over the same period.
a. Birth rate decline leads to lower incoming preschool and Kindergarten classes in 4-5 years, increasing districtwide decline over time.
5. School districts with declining enrollment suffer adverse impacts on the operational budget, as the state operational budget model is based on the number of students attending schools.
a. Planned growth from new development that is anticipated, comes in regular increments, and is understood by the school district facility and fiscal planners is the most beneficial to the school district and the community. b. This growth helps declining districts in particular by both offsetting operational budget losses due to potential enrollment decline and creating efficiencies when students enter existing facilities.
CENTRAL ArEA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/24/2022
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INCLUDING CASP IMPACTS
6. This report uses the Student Generation Rates ("SGR") from the AUSD 2022 School Facilities Needs Analysis ("SFNA") to estimate future students generated from CASP.
7. Under these rates, the CASP will generate a total of 1,384 K-6 students over a twenty year buildout.
a. Direct addition of 1,384 students to current enrollment would return the District enrollment to levels of the 2016-17 school year, but this ignores recent demographic and birth trends in local ZIP codes.
8. Using the State Office of Public School Construction (OPS) methodology for projecting students (outlined in CA Code of Regulations Title 2, Sections 1859.40-1859.43)), the maximum estimated 5-year districtwide student enrollment is 6,913 students in 2026-27, 938 students fewer than the enrollment of 7,851 in 2021-22.
9. JCJ Partners used several other methodologies (outlined on pages 13-14) to estimate future students, which include birth data, historical enrollment, the addition of a complete grade level under the new Universal Transitional Kindergarten Program, and student enrollment from the CASP.
a. Even when all CASP students are added to the four nearest schools, enrollment may only increase back to 2020-21 school year enrollment levels. See pages 14-21 for visualizations of these projections.
EXISTING & AVAILABLE SCHOOL CAPACITY
10. This report reviews existing and available school capacity on a districtwide basis and at the four schools nearest to the Project, including the Creekside, Frank Paul, John Steinbeck, and Virginia Rocca Barton Elementary Schools.
11. The District's School Facilities Needs Analyses published in 2018 through 2022 provide estimates of existing capacity that vary from year to year. This is due to special exclusions permitted in government code for calculation of school fees. The highest of these was 8,853 seats, reported in 2019-20, which decreased to 7,016 seats in the following year (2020-21).
a. SFNA figures were utilized in the 2018 Draft Environmental Impacts Report and 2020 Final Environmental Impacts Report for CASP, and are therefore provided in this report, even though the fluctuation of these existing capacities makes them unreliable as a benchmark for available capacity for future enrollment. b. It is important to note that while the published existing capacity figures in School Facility Needs Analyses vary, in practice the school district does not modify classroom inventory frequently.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/24/2022
12. The 2015 District Facility Master Plan ("FMP") reports a total of 406 classrooms across the District and 136 classrooms at the four nearest schools to the CASP area. Projects completed since 2015 or currently under construction are not expected to change the net existing capacity of school campuses. These classroom counts were used to provide several existing capacity estimates as explained below. a. The FMP identifies the total existing capacity of each campus, equal to 9,320 total seats in the District and 3,010 total seats in the four nearest schools to the CASP area.
13. JCJ Partners provides two additional estimates of District existing capacity based on different "Loading Standards," or students per classroom, applied to the reported number of classrooms in the 2015 FMP. It should be noted that 10% of classrooms were assumed to be used for Special Day Class ("SDC") classrooms and Transitional Kindergarten ("TK") classrooms.
a. The first Loading Standard is from the State School Facilities Program that funds new school construction projects ("State Loading Standards"). These standards, as described on page 18, result in a total existing capacity of 9,647 seats for the District, or 3,231 existing seats at the four nearest schools. b. The second Loading Standard set is based on the maximum number of students per class as agreed upon between the Alisal Teachers Association and District.
These "Maximum Local Loading Standards" are described on page 19 and result in 11,523 total existing seats in the District, as well as 3,860 existing seats at the four nearest schools.
IMPACTS SUMMARY
14. JCJ Partners enrollment projections and State 50-01 projections both indicate available existing capacity without needing to construct new classrooms, even with the addition of CASP development.
a. Based on projections that include all 20 years of CASP development, enrollment at the four nearest schools would plateau at close to the 2020-21 school year enrollment level. At the end of the current decade, projections of enrollment range from 6,555 to 7,228 students while District existing capacity could house between 9,320 and 11,523 students, depending on loading assumptions. b. Unless birth rate trends change significantly and regain the losses of the past decade in the District area ZIP Codes, current plans for future development will not result in the need for additional capacity.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/24/2022
SECTION 2:
DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS
1. Historically, the AUSD has received almost $95 million in capital funding from the State Facility Program ("SFP"). The program is currently backlogged, but school districts continue to submit new projects, which are placed on the "Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority" List.
2. This list will be reviewed and funded when funding is made available. While new construction projects are typically funded by statewide bonds, Governor Newsom allocated $1.3 billion from the 2022 State Budget Surplus to projects currently in line. a. The District is currently eligible for 650 K-6 new construction seats, and it has one application awaiting review. Upon review, the District must use the SAB Form 50-01 projections to update its eligibility.
b. If eligible, the District could apply for and receive funding to build new classrooms. Lack of eligibility for new construction funding would indicate the District has sufficient existing capacity for future students.
3. The District has received voter approval on two General Obligation (GO) bond measures in the last twenty years: Measure A for $90 million in 2006, and Measure M for $70 million in 2016. The District has approved the issuance of the entirety of Measure M funds, but approximately $58.7 million remains authorized under Measure A. a. The District has applied for and received two waivers from the State Board of Education ("SBE") to allow issuing debt over the statutory maximum of 1.25% of Assessed Value ("AV") of property within the District. The SBE waiver allows the District to levy up to 2.7% of District AV from Measure M or Measure A bonds until the beginning of 2035.
b. Under 2022 estimates, the buildout of the CASP will add approximately $1.75 billion in assessed value (in 2022$) to the existing real property value within the District. Under the statutory limit of 1.25%, this represents $21.8 million in potential bonding capacity, while the 2.7% waiver limit would allow $47.2 million in new bonding capacity for Measure A funding
c. The District is still collecting property taxes for the repayment of the local General Obligation bonds issued under approval from as far back as 1990. d. If not used to issue debt, the additional property value from the Project would reduce the tax rates for all taxpayers in Alisal USD over the next twenty years.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10/24/2022
4. The District is planning to adopt a Level 2 school impacts mitigation fee of $4.27 per square foot of residential construction, upon adoption of the 2022 School Facilities Needs Analysis ("SFNA") on October 26, 2022.
a. CASP will include an estimated 5.9 million square feet of residential construction that would generate approximately $25.1 million in district revenues under 2022 Level 2 fees. These fees will increase with inflation over the 20-year build out of the Project. Fees are paid when building permits are pulled, meaning proceeds to school districts will grow accordingly.
5. According to January 2021 information, the District budgeted $10 million of Measure M funds for the construction of a new elementary school. In September 2022, the District entered into a contract with architects to design the new school's master plan. However, District representatives admitted no short-term need for a new school, and enrollment projections in this report indicate that the need will not arise in the long-term.
CAPITAL FUNDS CONCLUSIONS
6. If the District chooses to construct a new elementary school, a majority of costs would be covered by the estimated $25 million in one-time developer fees and the $10 million budgeted from Measure M. In addition, the growth in the assessed value from CASP buildout can also generate local funding through voter-approved local bonds of at least $21.8 million and as much as $47.2 million.
a. Alternatively, the District can decide to focus on existing capacity and avoid issuing more debt.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 5
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 SECTION 1:
BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Under current planning estimates, the Central Area Specific Plan (CASP/Project) proposes the itsdance boundaries assign residents to a pantis at school district and sadial school CASP housing units will be entirely within the attendance boundaries of the Alisal Union [Elementary! School District ("District" or "AUSD" or "Alisal USD" for the instruction of PK-6th grade students.
The nearest schools in reference to the Project and school district boundaries can be viewed in Exhibit A.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 6
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 The graphic below identifies the Project location relative to school district boundaries. CASP residential development is entirely within Alisal USD.
PY OSCIS PIO
E Boronda Rd
Central Area Specific Plan
Arcedia Mist
Klamath Or Emerald Or Pescadero Dr
tucket Bive
Los Coches Are lohn Steinbeck ES
Creekside ES
Constitution Bir
isd
enter Alisal Union School District
Virginia Rocca
Barton ES
Frank Paul ES
Alame Voy
PacticAne
E Laurel Di Det Monte
Circle Dr
Witans. Rd Bardin Rs.
Sycamore Rid
E Niset St
This Report provides an analysis of existing school district enrollment and financial conditions, as well as an assessment of potential impacts produced by students generated from the Project ("Project Students"), plus capital budget benefits for the school district.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 7
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
ENROLLMENT TRENDS
As illustrated in Chart 1 (below), AUSD experienced a ten-year decline of 703 students (or
8.2%) since the 2011-12 school year, but most of this decline occurred over the last five years.
Enrollment increased from the 2006-07 school year until 2015-16, which marked the beginning of a continued decline until the last reported enrollment for the 2021-22 school year. The COVID-19 pandemic likely exacerbated this decline in the 2020-21 school year, but the overall decline is linked to other factors, such as the declining births in the area. Since the peak in 2015-16, AUSD lost 1,431 students in enrollment, a decline of 15.4%.
Chart 1
Alisal Union School District Enrollment Trends
11,000
10,000
9,282 9,235
9,153 9,162
9,005
8,748 8,835
9,000 8,750
8,554
8,372
Enrolled Students 7,851
8,000
7,000
6,000
2011-2012 2012-2013 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 School Year
School districts rely on enrollment to determine how much operational funding they receive from the State. Under the Local Control Funding Formula ("LFF"), the Average Daily Attendance (ADA") of district pupils determines how many funding grants are received. Additional grants are made available for districts with high percentages of socio-economically disadvantaged as we high percene of spired students. Therefore, districts with declining enrollment risk significant impact on operational budgets. Any growth from new development is, therefore, beneficial to school districts with declining enrollment, as it offsets the loss of students and resulting operational funding.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 8
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 Like the districtwide enrollment trends, the four closest schools to the Project Area, Chart 2 below) also experienced declining enrollment within the last 10 years, most of which occure ver the last five years. Enrollment at the four schools experienced a total decline of 630 student (21.1%) over the last five years. A detailed table with enrollment data can be found in Exhibit B.
Chart 2
Enrollment Trends in 4 Schools Nearest to CASP
Alisal Union School District
Creekside A Frank Paul • John E. Steinbeck • Virginia Rocca Barton 1000
800
E7801
600
Enrolled Students
400
200
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 School Year
PAGE 9
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
BIRTH TRENDS
Decline in enrollment within a district can be attributed to many factors. One critical variable connected with decline is the trend of live births within the ZIP codes of a district. Trends in birth data translate to similar patterns in Kindergarten enrollment after five years, as children are enrolled in Kindergarten when they reach 5 years old.
For example, children born in the year 2011 will generally start school 5 years later in 2016.
Chart 3 (below) depicts the history of live births from 2010 to 2020 within the three ZIP codes that span the AUSD school district jurisdiction boundary: 93905, 93906, and 93908. We can see this relationship by comparing Chart 3 to Chart 1 (District Enrollment), where the decline in live irths from 2011 to 2013 and from 2015 to 2017 correlates with declining enrollment at AUSD trom 2016 to 2021. The decline in births extends beyond the Alisal USD, with the surrounding Monterey County experiencing a decline of -17.8% from 2010 to 2020, and the state of California seeing a statewide decline of -17.6% in births over the same time span.
Chart 3
Live Births in AUSD ZIP Codes 93905, 93906, 93908
(District partially in all 3 ZIPs, shares no borders)
3,500
3,000
2,715 2,747
2,674
2,602
2,552 2,581
2,500 2,402
2,239 2,247 2,233
2,211
2,000
1,500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 10
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
STUDENT GENERATION FROM CASP PROJECT
Student Generation Rates
Student Generation Rates ("SGR") project the number of students generated from residential development. The SGR is a ratio of students per home, which is usually based on recent home construction history or district-wide data. The SGR is also usually grouped by grade level, elementary, middle, and high school, and by housing product type. Different types of housing products, sion to housing seduct type imilin enerate sad oat i terent rates. ¡actors in addition to housing product type,
community, size of the district, availability of neighborhood schools, and its location in the state, all affect SGRs.
Districts utilize these rates to assess impacts from future development. Some districts have has prepared/adopted a SNA each year for the last five years, and has also adopted DFJS reports in 2018 and 2020.! The different sets of SGR from these reports are listed below in Table Table 1
Alisal USD Student Generation Rates
Report Year Single Family SGR Multi-Family SGR
AUSD Developer Fee Justification Studies (DPJS)
2018 DFJS (DEIR) 0.6755 0.7398
2020 DFJS 0.5765 0.5832
AUSD School Facility Needs Analyses (SNA
2018 SFNA 0.7833 0.1944
2019 SFNA 0.7458 0.2976
2020 SFNA (FEIR) 0.4180 0.2857
2021 SFNA 0.3830 0.4400
2022 SFNA 0.3470 0.4380
' The District is likely to adopt a 2022 DFJS before 2024, but no draft report has been made available at the time of writing.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 11
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 It should be noted that the 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Central Area Specific Plan utilized the districtwide SGR from the 2018 DJFS. However, from the Table 1 (previous page), there is a clear decline in districtwide student generation from 2018 to 2020.
According to the 2020 DFJS, the report utilizes 2019-20 school year information, meaning that this drop in districtwide SR was not a result of COVID-19 impacts on enrollment. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") was published in 2020 and utilized the 2020 SFNA rates, resulting in 1,566 fewer projected students from Project units.? Since the publication of the 2018 SFNA, the SGR from Single Family units show a consistent decline, corresponding with the overall decline in enrollment for the District. The Multifamily SGR increased for homes built within the last five years (SNA SGR), while declining for homes districtwide (DFJS SGR). From a facility planning perspective, 5-year SGR from SFNA reports better represent housing product types that would be constructed in a future community, providing a more accurate estimate of student generation from new construction. Therefore, this report will utilize the 2022 SNA rates to estimate total student generation from CASP units, as well as an estimated annual student generation for use in enrollment projections.
CASP Project Student Generation
The current planning estimates for the Central Area Specific Plan include 1,791 Single Family units and 1,743 Multi-Family units to be developed over twenty years. See Table 2 (below) for an estimate of the total student generation from CASP units at buildout.
Table 2
Projected Students from CASP
Single Family SGR Multi-Family SGR Combined Total
2022 SFNA SGR 0.3470 0.4380 -
Total CASP Units 1,791 1,743 3,534
Projected Students (K-6) 621 763 1,384
It should be noted that adding this estimate to 2021-22 enrollment, without any other factors, would only increase District enrollment back to the level of enrollment in 2016-17 (9,235 students), slightly below the peak enrollment level experienced in 2015-16 (9,282 students) However, enrollment projections indicate that declines will eclipse the students from new development, when key existing demographic trends are considered. 2 The 2020 DFJS included an additional 218 SFD units and 510 MF units, but lost 646 students from SFD units and another 475 students from MF units, compared to the 2018 DFJS. 3 The DEIR projected 3,591 students from 3,911 total units, while the FEIR estimates 2,025 students from the same unit count (1,408 students in K-6). In Table 2, this decreases to 1,384 K-6 students projected using 2022 SENA rates, from 377 fewer units.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 12
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
HISTORICAL & PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Form 50-01 Projection Scenarios
Under the current regulations of the CA School Facility Program ("SFP"),* Districts use SAB Form 50-01 as the first step in certifying eligibility for New Construction funding. Form 50-01 provides a projection of District enrollment after five or ten years under the current trends, including births and new development. Governed by CA Code of Regulations Title 2, Sections 1859.40-1859.43, the methodology of these projections can be adjusted with variations of weighting the average of each grade's growth by grade.
The Office of Public School Construction ("OPS) website provides a tool to help districts calculate these projections, and districts are encouraged to utilize whichever methodology leads to the highest enrollment possible to achieve eligibility for funding. The projection methodology is sensitive to recent decline in enrollment, especially when it takes place in three consecutive years.
Utilizing reported District enrollment for the last 4 years, JCJ Partners performed numerous projections using the OPSC Web Tool. We included County birth data from 2013-2020 and the 5-year projected future units and Student Generation Rates ("SGR") reported in the 2022 School Facilities Needs Analysis ("SFNA"). The largest 5-year enrollment projection our office estimated reached 6,913 students in the 2026-27 school year, or 938 students (12%) fewer than enrolled in 2021-22. Our projection using the ten-year enrollment option, which uses 8 years of data, calculated as few as 3,945 students by the 2031-32 school year, a drop of almost 50% from 2021-22.
However, 50-01 projections have not yet been adjusted for the impacts of Transitional Kindergarten/Preschool on CA school districts over the next four years. Signed into law as part of the 2021-22 Budget Trailer Bill, CA schools will begin opening enrollment to students born four years ago, with 100% of 4-year-olds eligible by the 2025-26 school year. Many of the declining school districts across the state are preparing for this addition of an entire grade of students.
JCJ Partners Cohort Projection Scenarios
For a second, more comprehensive estimate of future enrollment in the District, JCJ Partners performed several different scenarios of cohort survival projections? We projected annual cohort changes from one grade level to the next using various scenarios of by-grade average changes over the previous one, three, or five years. The goal in preparation of multiple scenarios was to evaluate the effect of various existing circumstances' from the last five years on future * For more background on the SFP, see the State Funding portion of the following section. taking the average cohort survival count for each year. Other weighting methods include "1-2-3" and "1-1-1". 6 SFP Enrollment Projection Certification/Projection Calculator: OPSC. DGS. Web Retrieved September 19, 2022. " Cohort survival factors represent the changes in the number of students that matriculate through the school system as a group, on a per grade and districtwide level.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 13
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 enrollment. Additionally, the projections apply birth rate data to the Kindergarten class of each year, corresponding with the annual change in births between 2015 and 2020, sourced from the three ZIP Codes in which the District has jurisdiction.® Next, to estimate the CA school system allowing 4-year-old students to enroll in Transitional Kindergarten ("TK), to be phased in over the next four school years, a percentage of the current Kindergarten classes was duplicated for each year according to the approximate number of 4-year-olds eligible per school year. Finally, an estimate of students generated from future development was added t each grade for the 20 years of CASP planned development. Thest assumptions estimate occupancy of units starting in 2024-25 and aligns with the assumptions reported in the District's 2022 SFNA report.
JCJ Partners methodology creates a more detailed picture of potential District enrollment trends over the next five years (2026-27) and at the end of the decade (2029-30). According to JCJ Partners cohort enrollment projections, the District enrollment will continue to decline even with the average annual development of CASP and the addition of 4-year-old students in a new grade level. See Exhibit C for specific methodology of JCJ Partners cohort projections, and see Chart 4 (below) for a summarized visualization of these projection scenarios.
Chart 4
Districtwide Cohort Enrollment Projection Scenarios
10000
Enrollment History. Enrollment Projections
9000
8000
7000
6000
A 3-Year Average (Pre-COVID, 2017-18 thru 2019-20) • 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) • 1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) • No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in) CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 14
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 As displayed previously, this trend of enrollment decline began several years before the impacts of COVID-19. Furthermore, although both the State and Monterey county experienced a smaller rate of decline after reopening in 2021-22, AUSD experienced an additional decrease of 521 students (6.2%) in enrollment from 2020-21 to 2021-22, an even larger decrease than from 2019-20 to 2020-21 (a loss of 376 K-6 students, or 4.3%).
Regardless of the historical average cohort change utilized in the projections, recent trends indicate a continued decline. These 3- and 5-year averages are compounded by the downturn in birth rates in the District area and the county overall over the last five years. All of the forecasts show stable enrollment at current levels only due to the addition of a full TK grade level, from 2022-23 to 2025-26. In 2024-25, CASP starts generating approximately 10 students per grade per year for TK-6. Therefore, the projections provide an aggressive estimate that incorporates the latest educational program changes from the State?. However, even the additional projected students do not reverse the overall trend of enrollment decline. addition of the completed TK grade increases the total projected " or the purposed CAST stien prom 1,34, to the total of 1, 00 at buildout CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 15
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 Schools Nearest to Central Area Specific Plan
Using the same methodology, JCJ Partners performed a second set of cohort projections for the four schools closest to the CASP Project area. These forecasts assume the entirety of the students generated by CASP units would attend the four nearest schools (Creekside ES, Frank Paul ES, John E. Steinbeck ES, and Virginia Rocca Barton ES), including the extra students due to inclusion of TK. Chart 5 (below) shows that the all of different cohort trends result in an apparent short-term reversal in enrollment trend, returning almost to 2020-21 enrollment levels (the year COVID decreased enrollments state-wide).
Chart 5
4 Nearest Schools Cohort Enrollment Projection Scenarios Includes CASP Enrollment
3250
Enrollment History Enrollment Projections
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
201415 2021-22
1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) • 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) A 3-Year Pre-Covid (2017-18 thru 2019-20) • No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in) However, despite the appearance of increased levels of enrollment at the four nearest schools, historical trends point to a plateau in enrollment over the course of CASP development. Exhibit D provides the long-term projections of the 4 nearest schools through buildout of CASP.
Even under the most optimistic scenario, enrollment does not increase back to the levels of the 2019-20 school year or prior enrollment peak.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 16
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
EXISTING CAPACITY
District-Reported Existing Capacity by Source
Facility Master Plan
In 2015, the District employed Aedis Architects to prepare a Facilities Master Plan ("FMP") for the District. The FMP collected all the recommended updates needed on each campus and estimated the cost of these updates. However, the FMP also reported all the classrooms at each school, as well as the existing capacity of all schools in the District ("FMP Existing Capacity").
The FMP reported a total of 9,320 seats of existing districtwide capacity in 2015, and an FMP Existing Capacity of 3,010 seats at the four schools closest to the Project. JCJ Partners surveyed satellite imagery to observe whether the District performed any significant construction on existing campuses, but only found an overall addition of five portable classrooms across the District. For the purposes of this report, the current reconstruction of Fremont ES and Alisal Community ES will presumably create the same level of existing capacity as reported for the two schools in the FMP. This report will utilize the FMP Existing Capacity as reported in 2015, as well as several other estimates of existing capacity calculated using the FMP-reported number of classrooms, discussed further in the following sections.
District SNAs
As previously mentioned, and as discussed Further in Section 2, the District must prepare a SFNA to levy Development Impact Fees in excess of the State minimum (Level 1 fees).1° SFNAs must prove a nexus between future development and new students, to help districts mitigate impacts of new students on current facilities. For this purpose, SNAs calculate the existing capacity of a school district using the baseline capacity, or classroom inventory established when districts first apply for state funding through the SFP, plus any new seats of capacity added through state funds for New Construction. For the purposes of SFNA calculations, existing district capacity may be adjusted to exclude portable/relocatable classrooms under certain scenarios (defined under Education Code Title 1, Sections 17071.10 - 17071.46). However, these adjustments do not accurately represent the actual existing capacity of a district's existing classroom inventory.
Alisal USD has employed two different consulting firms to prepare SNAs over the last five years. Cooperative Strategies prepared the 2018, 2019, and 2020 SFNAs, while School Facility Consultants prepared the most recent two reports (2021 & 2022). These five separate SFNAs report a wide range of existing capacities for the District, see Table 3 (next page). 10 Level 1 fees are set every even year in January by the State Allocation Board based on the changes in a construction cost index over the previous two years..
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 17
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 Table 3
SFNA School Facilities Existing Capacity
Consultant SFNA Year Existing Capacity
2018 SFNA -
Cooperative Strategies DEIR SOURCE 8,503 seats
Cooperative Strategies 2019 SFNA 8,853 seats
Cooperative Strategies 2020 SFNA 8,808 seats
School Facility Consultants 2021 SNA 7,016 seats
School Facility Consultants 2022 SNA 7,375 seats
Aedis Architects 2015 FMP 9,320 seats
The DEIR utilized the capacity calculated in the 2018 SFNA and DFJS for its estimation of excess available capacity for students generated from the CASP. However, it is clear from the table above that the process for calculating existing capacity for an SFNA is much more flexible than the actual building/demolishing activities of the District, especially when compared to the FMP Existing Capacity of 9,320 total seats. Having this flexibility, districts can report a lack of available space for students from future development, and then levy higher fees to mitigate impacts from those students.
Calculated Capacity Based on Classroom Loading Standards JCJ Partners estimated the existing capacity of each school in the District based on the number of classrooms reported in the FMP. However, the FMP does not distinguish between either TK classrooms or Special Day Class ("SD"') classrooms, both of which affect the number of students generally allowed to utilize a classroom at one time (referred to as a "loading standard"). To account for this, our office applied the assumption that an estimated 10% of classrooms in the District are utilized for SDC and TK instruction. This report applies two sets of loading standards, the first set by the State and the second representing the maximum class size District teachers agreed to instruct.
State Loading Standards
Under the SFP, classrooms for grades K-6 are loaded with 25 students per classroom. SDC pupils are loaded at a ratio of 13 Non-Severe students or 9 Severe students per SDC classroom. Finally, TK classrooms are loaded with 12 students, each. Utilizing these loading standards and the assumption of 10% TK and SDC classrooms, JCJ Partners estimated existing capacity of approximately 9,647 total seats within the District, including 3,231 seats at the four nearest schools to the Project. (See a summary of classroom and existing capacity in the following Table 4.)
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 18
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 Teachers Association Agreement Loading Standards
As part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the District and the Alisal Teachers' Association, Teachers agreed to a maximum number of students in any one class before the District must pay additional stipends. Article Twelve of the 2018-21 Agreement defines these maximums as 29 students per class in grades KG-1st, 30 per grade in 2nd-3rd, 31 per grade in 4th-6th, and 12 SDC students per class.
While this is not technically a loading standard, it can be seen as a maximum number of students the District is willing to load to accommodate enrollment, and this report will refer to it as Maximum Local Loading Standards. Under an average of these maximums, the District is theoretically able to house up to 11,523 students, while the four nearest schools may house up to 3,860.
Table 4 (below) provides a summary of assumptions of classrooms at each site and comparison of the resulting estimated capacities calculated under the State and Maximum Local Loading Standards, along with the FMP Capacities at each school.
Table 4
Summary of Classroom Assumptions & Calculated Existing Capacity for District Schools Existing Capacity
TK/SDC Maximum
Total State FMP 2021-22
School Name Classroom Local
Classrooms Loading Target Enrollment
Estimate Loading
Alisal Community School 31 3 737 879 810 562
Bardin ES 34 3 808 965 750 626
Chavez ES 34 3 808 965 825 682
Dr: Oscar F. Loya ES 39 4 926 1,107 800 628
Fremont ES 38 4 903 1,079 875 783
Jesse Sanchez School 34 3 808 965 850 771
MLK Jr: Academy 24 2 571 681 600 603
Tiburcio Vasquez ES 36 4 855 1,022 800 835
Creekside ES 32 3 760 908 675 571
Frank Paul ES 34 3 807 965 800 658
John Steinbeck ES 34 3 808 965 735 553
Virginia Rocca Barton School 36 4 856 1,022 800 579
Four Closest School Subtotal 136 13 3,231 3,860 3,010 2,361 Total 406 39 9,647 11,523 9,320 7,851
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 19
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022
SUMMARY & ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE CAPACITY
Short-Term Available Capacity
Under all five scenarios of cohort projection, short-term District enrollment fails to reach the levels of the past year, much less the capacities reported by the District FMP, or the two estimates of existing capacity calculated using the reported number of classrooms. See Chart 6 (below) for the cohort projections compared to these three levels of existing capacity.
Chart 6
Districtwide Cohort Enrollment Projection
Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections
12000
Max Local Capacity A
10000 State Standard Capacity A
FMP Capacity -
AUSD Students
8000
Enrollment History Enrollment Projections
A State Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) A Maximum Loading Standard (W/ TK Assumption) FMP Existing Capacity • 3-Year Average (Pre-COVID, 2017-18 thru 2019-20) • 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) • 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) • 1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) • No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in) From Chart 6 (above), the projection utilizing the latest one-year change in cohort enrollment offers the most pessimistic estimate of enrollment at the end of the decade (an estimated 6,555 students in 2029-30), despite the addition of students from the Project. This falls below even the lowest reported existing capacity of 7,016 seats in the 2021 SFNA. Meanwhile, the most optimistic scenario (the average cohort change over the course of 2017-18 to 2019-20) results in 7,228 students by the 2029-30 school year. Both of these extremes would result in future available seats when compared to the FMP-reported District existing capacity of 9,320.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 20
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND & DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 10/24/2022 Existing Capacity at Schools Nearest to CASP
Chart 7 (below) compares projections for the 4 Nearby Schools to their reported & calculated capacities.
Chart 7
4 Nearest Schools Cohort Enrollment Projections
Existing Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections
4000
Max Local Capacity A
3500
State Standard Capacity A
3000
FMP Capacity A
2500
Enrollment History Enrollment Projections
Do p0161° p016i 207418 20181 201920 03021 2021-22 2022-23 2083 24 202420 202528 202672 207128 2028-29 2029-30 A State Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) 4 Maximum Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) • 1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) • 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) • 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) • 3-Year Pre-Covid (2017-18 thru 2019-20) • No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in) As previously mentioned, compared to Districtwide projections, enrollment trends increase when we assume all CASP students attend the four nearby schools closest to the Project area.
Nevertheless, enrollment from existing students and future CASP development is unlikely to increase back to the peak levels of pre-2020, much less to the FMP-reported level of existing capacity for all four schools.
As shown in Charts 6 and 7 and supported by long-term projections through buildout of CASP in Exhibit D, existing school capacity exceeds enrollment districtwide and at the nearest schools even with the addition of CASP students and the complete TK grade. Unless local trends for birth data change significantly, existing capacity and other planning methods (such as reorganization of school attendance boundaries) to accommodate new students over the next two decades provide the District with capital and operational efficiency that would be lost with construction of a new school.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 21
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 SECTION 2:
DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTION
CAPITAL BUDGET
School District capital funds can include state funding, developer fees, local general obligation fees cannot be used for operations, i.e., hiring teachers or administrators.
State Funding
Background
Senate Bill (SB) 50, which passed in 1998, provided a comprehensive school facility financing and reform program and enabled a bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allowed the state to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modernize existing school facilities. Since 1998, five statewide obligation bond measures (Propositions 51, 1A, 47, 55 and 1D) have been approved by voters for a total of over $42 billion to fund the School Facility Program ("SFP").
The most recent of these statewide obligation bond measures was approved in November 2016.
A total of $9 Billion was allocated. As of September 12, 2018, OPSC received requests for new construction projects that exceeded the available bond authority, and any applications received on or after this date will be placed on the Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority ("ARBBA") list. CA Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 1859.95.1 requires that all new construction applications placed on this list must contain a school board resolution specifying certain acknowledgements."
"Executive Officer's Statement. Financial Reports. State Allocation Board Meeting Agenda. August 15, 2018. Web retrieved November 14, 2018. www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 22
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Future Bonds
CA Statewide bonds have a record of support by voters. Since the 1980s, 17 bonds have been placed on the ballot, of which 14 bonds received approval and three failed. In the CA State Legislature, there are two bills focused on providing more bond funds to the SFP, Senate Bill 22 ("SB-22") and Assembly Bill 75 ("AB-75"), both of which would place a state bond measure on an undetermined statewide election. However, these two bills were tabled for the 2020-21 would likely be replaced by new similar bills in future legislative sessions, their details are as follows, at the time of writing:
- AB-75 (O'Donnell), proposes $12 billion in state bonds for facilities from Kindergarten to Community College (K-14), for voter approval at an unspecified election. However, the funds have not yet been split between K-12 and Community Colleges, or between different types of projects (i.e. New Construction, Modernization, etc.). AB-75 includes funding for lead testing/remediation, funding for small school districts, and adds general modernization funding for buildings over 75 years old. Additionally, AB-75 would authorize districts to expand or construct one of the following essential facilities including the gym, MPR, library, or kitchen, and would increase access to financial hardship funding by increasing the bonding capacity requirements. A new requirement proposed under AB-75 would be a district-wide summary of age, capacity, and facilities information for all schools. Finally, AB-75 would require the CA Department of General Services to process all applications received under the program within 120 days of receipt. AB 75 was set for hearing by the CA Senate Education Committee on June 22, 2022. However, the hearing was canceled, and the school community expects the next statewide bond to be placed on the ballot beyond 2022, in anticipation of the budget surplus funds, discussed in the following section.
- SB-22 (Glazer), would put $15.5 billion in bonds up for election in an unspecified election. Of the total, $9.5 billion would be allocated to K-12 districts, with $2.8 billion made available for New Construction projects, both future and those already on the SAB's Acknowledged List. SB-22 includes provisions for seismic mitigation, drinking water lead testing/remediation, and increased funding access for Small School Districts.
The Bill also increases the limit on district bonding capacity compared to assessed valuation from 1.25% to 2% of Assessed Value ("AV") for Elementary & High School Districts, and from 2.5% to 4% for Unified Districts. Finally, the Bill requires districts to submit a 5-year Facilities Master Plan to participate in the School Facilities Program. 12 According to LegInfo Status information, AB-75 was set for a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Education and Governance & Finance on 06/13/22, but the hearing was canceled at the request of the author.
CENTRAL ArEA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 23
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 2022-23 State Budget and Future Budget Surplus
As part of the 2022-23 State Budget, Governor Newsom proposed a series of one-time payments totaling approximately $4.24 billion from the CA General Fund to fund New Construction and Modernization projects on the ARBBA list, utilizing higher-than-expected excess levels of state revenues. While the first $1.3 billion of this allocation was made in 2022-23, the remaining funds are proposed for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. The funds dedicated from future fiscal years may be affected by California fiscal conditions, and would have a signifcant impact on the number of projects on the ARBBA list.
State Funding Eligibility
Historically, the Alisal USD has actively participated in the SFP, and has received more state funding for New Construction than for Modernization/Rehabilitation. According to state records, the AUSD received approximately $78.5 million in New Construction funding and approximately $16 million in Modernization/Rehabilitation. '3 Under the existing program rules, a school district must establish districtwide or high school attendance area ("HSAA") state funding eligibility to be able to participate in any of the programs listed above. Essentially, districtwide eligibility is a comparison of expected enrollment to seat capacity at existing schools. The resulting "unhoused projected students" determine the amount of eligibility a district receives. State funding eligibility varies with projected enrollment growth, including growth from new development, as compared to the number of existing seats in the district. When an application that is currently on the ARBBA list is reviewed current regulations require an update of the enrollment projections.
According to the 2022 SFNA, District eligibility was last adjusted at the June 24, 2020 meeting of the SAB. According to the meeting agenda, the District's adjusted eligibility was 119 seats of K-6 eligibility. However, the OPSC Application Tracker website shows remaining eligibility increased to 650 at the time of writing. Since this adjustment, the District submitted an application for New Construction at its existing Fremont Elementary campus, which is currently waiting on the ARBBA list. The Fremont Elementary application requests 375 seats of K-6 grants, which will be adjusted according to the District's remaining eligibility after submitting new 50-01 projections.
13 Office of School Construction Data Dashboard. Alisal Union School District District Data. All Types & Bond Measures. https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Dashboard/.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PAGE 24
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Based on the position of the application on the ARBBA list, the Fremont Elementary project will not receive funding from the first allocation of the one-time funds in the 2022-23 State Budget.
The total amount of funding for these grants depends on the year in which the applications are approved. Based on adjustment of all projects on the ARBBA list to 2022 dollars, the Fremont Elementary application would receive funding under the second one-time payment, once the SAB had approved 814 other applications, at most, worth approximately $3.1 billion (2022$). It should be noted that applications may be denied funding, moving the Fremont application up the list. Furthermore, costs will increase as the OPS reviews applications past 2022, leaving less funding for projects further down the list.
Potential Grants for Future New Construction
As discussed in a previous section, based on the OPSC Form 50-01 5th year projection, the District's 5-year enrollment projections indicate a steady decline in enrollment. In order to establish eligibility for state funds, the District would need to project a 5-year increase in enrollment to over 7,375 students, according to the latest existing capacity calculated in the 2022 SFNA. Therefore, it is unlikely that state funding will be available after the remaining grants are apportioned for the existing Fremont ES project. The process of determining eligibility indicates whether districts will have "unhoused students" and require additional capacity for future enrollment. With this in mind, Alisal USD projections imply the District will have sufficient available capacity for future students.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 25
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Developer Fees
Background
SB 50 established a process for determining the amount of fees that developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities. Under this legislation, a school district of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50.
SB 50 established three levels of Developer Fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district. The district may levy one of these three levels at a time, after meeting the requirements described below:
Level 1: Level 1 fees are the base statutory fees. These predetermined amounts are the statutory maximum that can be legally imposed upon new construction projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding.
These rates are established by the SAB, and may be increased bi-annually to adjust for inflation.
Adjustments are based upon a statewide cost index for Class B construction, currently provided by RS Means Index (previously provided by Marshall & Swift). After adoption by the SAB, school district boards may review and approve a Developer Fee Justification Study (DFJS) to implement current Level 1 fees. Pursuant to the California Government Code Title 7, Section 65995, as of February 2022, the statutory maximum Level 1 school fees that may be levied by a K-12 school district on new development are $4.79 per assessable SF of residential construction and of $0.78 per SF of enclosed and covered space for commercial/industrial development.
Level 2 & 3 (Alternative): Level 2/3 (Alternative) fees allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory level. In theory, Level 2 fees provide up to 50 percent of new school construction costs. Level 3 fees apply if the state runs out of bond funds, allowing the school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation, minus any local dedicated school funds. To implement Level 2 and 3 fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis ("SFNA") annually and meet other pre-requisites in accordance with Title 7, Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code.
A development project applicant pays developer fees to a school district at the time building permits are issued, unless an alternative school impact mitigation agreement states otherwise.
Payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. 4 14 CA Senate Bill 50. Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998: Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Government Code Title 7, Section 65995.(h.). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_50_bill_19980827_chaptered.html CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 26
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Developer Fee Sharing Agreement
When non-unified school districts serve grades K-12 in a geographic area, such as with Alisal USD and Salinas Union High School District, these districts must come to an agreement on how to split Level 1 developer fees. The District receives 53.85% of Level 1 fees, according to the 2020 DFJS prepared for AUSD. 'S
Current Developer Fees!"
The Alisal Union Board of Trustees ratified the contract for preparation of the 2022 SFNA at their September 14o meeting el Fees 202 site free posed ay fee a spin, er sen ty their September 14th meeting. scheduled for October 26, 2022.
At the time of writing, the Project plans for an estimated total square footage (SF) of 5.9 million SF of assessable space for all residential units. JCJ Partners applied developer fees per square foot to the total square footage to estimate potential residential developer fees from the Project as detailed below in Table 5. All square footage assumptions are subject to change and developer fees are provided as estimates.
Table 5
Developer Fee Estimates for Central Area Specific Plan
Residential Estimated Total
Developer Fee Source Total SF
Developer Fee per SF Developer Fees Collected
2022 SFNA $4.27/SF 5,886,900 SF $25,137,063
Future Developer Fees
It should be noted that the Project will be constructed over the course of 20 years, in which time developer fees will likely be increased. It is unknown whether the District will levy fees under the Alternative (Level 213) fees, which must be adopted annually, or under Level 1 fees, which are approved every even year in January.
15 Sourced from page 25 of 2020 DFJS prepared for Alisal USD. 16 The District currently levies its agreed-upon percentage split of the 2020 maximum Level 1 fees of $4.08 per SF ("/SF") of residential construction, or $2.20/SF, and the percentage split of $0.66/SF of commercial/industrial construction, or $0.33/SF.
However, the District entered into a contract for preparation of a 2022 DFJS, which would permit the District to levy $2.58/SF of residential and $0.43/SF of commercial/industrial construction. Based on Proiect total SF of 5.886.900 SF. the Proiect would generate $12,933,990 in 2020 Level 1 fees, or $15,184,758 in 2022 Level 1 fees.
Information retrieved from September 14th, 2022 AUSD board meeting agenda. 18 2022 SFNA Contract Ratification from September 14th, 2022 AUSD Board Meeting https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/alisal/Board.nsf/files/CHRQEJ68F2B6/$file/2022_6_28_Alisal%20Union%20School%20District% 20SFNA%20Prop.pdf
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 27
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 General Obligation ("GO") Bonds
To finance capital improvements and new school construction, school districts in California may also borrow money in the form of a General Obligation ("GO") bond. As a result of the passage of Proposition 39, school districts can seek either two-thirds or 55 percent voter approval, with additional accountability requirements for the lower percentage.
In light of the fact that state funding is currently limited, school districts are actively placing new GO bonds on local ballots. Alisal USD has placed multiple GO Bond Measures up for election over the last two decades, all of which have received voter approval. Table 6 (below) lists the details of the last two bond measures.
Table 6
Alisal USD School District GO Bond History
MEASURE A - Approved
Date Of Election: November 7, 2006
Proposed Bond: $90 Million
Vote In Favor: 64.83% (55% Required)
Purpose:
• To improve safety, upgrade classrooms, and make repairs at every neighborhood elementary school by:
• Replacing leaky roofs and outdated electrical wiring; Repairing deteriorating restrooms and plumbing;
• Upgrading classrooms and computer labs to teach math and science; and Adding new classrooms to existing schools and building new elementary schools to prepare for growing student enrollment;
MEASURE M- Approved
Date Of Election: November 8, 2016
Proposed Bond: $70 Million
Vote In Favor: 73.22% (66.7% Required)
Purpose:
• Improve access to classrooms and facilities for disabled students and community members. • Repair/Replace deteriorated roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and electrical systems. • Update classrooms for science, math, music, art programs and other core academics. • Rebuild/Renovate Alisal Community School and Fremont Elementary School. • Upgrade safety and security systems.
• Modernize outdated systems to support classroom instructional technology. • Relieve overcrowding by constructing a new elementary school.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 28
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 It should be noted that Alisal USD is in the process of repaying bonds on several other measures going back to 1990. Based upon all outstanding general obligation bond commitments, the combined effective 2021-22 GO Bond tax rate for AUSD is $176.77 per $100,000 of AV. '' The District's tax rate, although slightly lower than in previous years, is still the highest of non-unified districts in Monterey County.
Bonding Capacity
CA Education Code Title 1, Section 15102 stipulates that elementary and high school districts may issue general obligation bond debt valued up to 1.25% of the AV of property within the district. Based on 2021-22 AV, the District has exceeded their debt limit base by more than double. To incur this amount of debt, the District applied for two waivers from the State Board of Education over the last five years. The first waiver was submitted in March 2017 and requested an increase to the District's bonding capacity to 2.35% of District AV. This 2017 waiver only applied to bond funds issued from authorization under Measure M, and expires at the end of 2025: In March 2021, the District applied for and received another waiver to add to District debt using Measure A bond funds, as well as to extend the original authorization for Measure M funds. Therefore, until the expiration of the 2021 waiver (in December 2034), the District is authorized to issue bond funds from both Measure M and Measure A up to the limit of 2.70% of the District's AV.
The Alisal Union Board recently resolved to issue the remaining balance of authorized bond funds under Measure M, totalling approximately $32 million, at its June 20th, 2022 Meeting for the Board. Along with the first issuance of bonds under Measure M, the funds have been budgeted to finish projects at both Alisal Community School and Fremont Elementary, as well as provide $10 million in funding for a future elementary school.
The most recent issuance under Measure A authorization was approximately $14.1 million in 2021. According to the Official Statement of the Bond Series, the District's issuance leaves approximately $58.7 million in bond debt authorization remaining under Measure A. These funds may be used to modernize existing facilities or add new capacity to the District.
Impact of Development of CASP on Bonding Capacity
The District could choose to pursue even more GO Bond funding considering the increased AV of the Project over the next twenty years. At buildout, the Project is estimated to add approximately $1.75 billion in AV to the District (in 2022$). Under the statutory limit of 1.25%, this would make approximately $21.8 million in bonding capacity available to the district from the CASP alone.
19 2021/22 Monterey County Tax Rates. Alisal Union School District Bond 1990 Ser C & 1999 Ser A D & 2006 B & 2016 A & 2017 Ref. County of Monterey.https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/106941/637729090695900000.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 29
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 If Measure A authorized funds remain unissued at buildout, the District could potentially issue up to 2.7% of this new AV, resulting in approximately $47.1 million in additional bonding capacity for Measure A bond issuances. The District could also pursue further waivers in the future to allow for the full utilization of the new Project AV. See a summary of AV and bonding capacity in Table 7 (below).
Table 7
Summary of Assessed Valuation and Bonding Capacity
Bonding Capacity Limit of AV
Assessed Valuation Assessed
Source Value 1.25% (State 2.7% Measure
Limit) M & A)
2021-22 District $3.59 B $44.9 M $96.9 M
Estimated Project AV $1.75 B $21.8 M $47.2 M
Combined AV $5.34 B $66.7 M $144.1 M
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PAGE 30
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022
SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS
State Funding
Historically, the District has relied on state and local funds to construct school facilities, receiving $94.6 million dollars in new construction projects since 1998. The District is currently awaiting review of another New Construction application for Fremont Elementary, wherein it requested grants for 375 seats of K-6 facilities in 2021. Based on the remaining eligibility after the latest approval for state funding, the District is eligible for 650 K-6 seats of New Construction funds.
However, the District must re-certify its eligibility for these funds when the current application is reviewed by OPSC, and the District may lose its existing eligibility. Based on projections made using the SAB Form 50-01 online tool, enrollment in the District may decline to a level below the latest-reported existing capacity, resulting in reduced eligibility for new funds. If District enrollment continues to decline and state funding becomes unavailable, the District will use funds from local sources, alone.?° A key implication of declining eligibility to receive state new construction funding is that the District is able to accommodate future enrollment in existing facilities.
GO Bonds & Project AV
A common method of raising local funds is a local districtwide General Obligation (GO) Bond or a Special Facilities Improvement District (SFID), which may be focused on a specific geographic area. The local bonds must first be approved by voters and once issued will be repaid by the payment of property taxes within the school district. At the time of writing, the District has received voter approval on two General Obligation bond measures in the last two decades.
The first of these GO Bonds, totalling $90 million, was authorized by the voters in 2006 under "Measure A", but bond funds were not issued due to the loss of assessed valuation caused by the Great Recession in 2008. The second authorization under "Measure M" totaled $70 million and was approved in 2016. The District recently issued the last of the debt authorized under Measure M, budgeted for improvements of Alisal Community School and Fremont Elementary, as well as $10 million towards a potential new elementary school. In addition, according to the latest issuance of debt under Measure A, approximately $58.7 million remains to be issued under the 2006 authorization.
The District's ability to issue local debt depends on the bonding capacity limit, usually defined as
1.25% of the assessed value of all property within an elementary/high school district, or 2.5% of the AV within a unified district. However, Alisal USD has requested multiple waivers from the State Board of Education, which have allowed them to exceed the statutory limit. In 2016 and again in 2021, the District's debt limit was first increased to 2.35% of AV for debt issued under Measure M, and then increased to 2.7% of AV for debt issued under both Measure A and M. The 20 There is discussion in the school community of specialized legislation, which would allow school districts to avoid updating enrollment data for applications on the ARBBA list. However, there is no bill currently in review by the legislature addressing this topic.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 31
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 latest waiver allows the District to maintain this bonding capacity until December 31, 2034, as long as the debt is issued from the remaining authorization of Measure A.
As the CASP builds out, the total Assessed Value of property within the District will increase. As long as authorization remains under Measure A, up to 2.7% of this new AV will be available as additional bonding capacity for future issuances. Current estimates put the AV of the Project at approximately $1.747 billion (in 2022 dollars), at buildout, which would provide approximately $47.2 million in bonding capacity, under Measure A. Under any other future bond measure,
1.25% of the Project AV would provide approximately $21.8 million in bonding capacity, unless the District receives another waiver. Without an additional waiver, AUSD must reduce its outstanding debt to below the 1.25% statutory limit before issuing more GO bonds.
However, additional bonding capacity does not necessitate that the District issue the remaining bonds authorized under Measure A or any other future measure. As of the 2021-22 Fiscal Year, the total debt rate for all outstanding bonds reached approximately $176.77 per $100,000 of AV.
While the District has decreased its total debt rate from $239.83 per $100K in the 2019-20 Fiscal Year, it still levies a high debt rate. Rather than issuing more debt using Project AV and increasing these rates, the additional property value could help spread out the existing debt burden onto new homeowners.
Developer Fees
In addition to increased District AV, the Project will contribute one-time funding to the District through payment of Development Impact Fees (or Developer Fees). At the time of writing, Alisal USD has received a draft SNA, dated July 2022, which calculates a Level 2 fee of $4.27 per square foot of residential construction. Based on the current planning estimates for the Project, an approximate total of 5.9 million in residential square footage will be constructed at buildout.
Under the current fee, this would generate approximately $25.1 million in one-time funding for the District.
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 32
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Available Funds for Future Facilities
As previously mentioned, on July 20th, 2022, the District Board approved issuance of remaining bonds authorized under Measure M (2016 Series B), totaling $32,004,593. According to the 2022-23 District Budget, the Building Fund began the 2022-23 Fiscal Year with a balance of approximately $33 million, and all of these funds are budgeted for expenditures by the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year. However, based on the CA State Treasurer Debt Watch tool, and the date of the Resolution to issue the remaining funds, the $32 million in Measure M bond funds had not yet been sold when the 2022-23 Budget was approved.?
According to Measure M budgeting information from a January 2021 presentation, $60 million in funds from Measure M bonds are dedicated to construction at two existing elementary schools, while the remaining $10 million is budgeted towards a New Elementary School. Once the District receives Series B funds, this $10 million will be available for future school construction. At its meeting on September 14th, 2022, the Alisal USD board agreed to allocate $65,000 to In Studio Architecture for Master Planning of a potential new elementary school.
However, in the Background section of the agenda item, the district notes the following:
"At the time [of Measure M voter approval and Measure M fund budgeting for a new elementary school], nearly 9000 students were enrolled in the District; however, enrollment has since declined consistently, and currently stands at around 7500 students.
Though the District has no immediate need for an additional elementary school, enrollment is expected to once again increase in the near future and the District intends to move forward with building its 13th school within the next 10 years.
As discussed in Section 1, enrollment projections indicate the District will continue to decline in enrollment, rendering a new school unnecessary. However, if the District decides to go forward with construction, it should have the ability to fund an elementary school. Alternatively, these funds may be better utilized on improvements to existing schools, particularly those nearest to anticipated new development like the CASP.
According to the District's 2020 DFJS report, the cost of constructing an elementary school (without site acquisition) was approximately $45.9 million in 2020. This cost increases to approximately $54 million when adjusted to 2022 dollars, using the annual change in Class B construction costs (17.45% change from 2020 to 2022). The total financial contributions from the Project are detailed in Table 8 (next page), which also includes a comparison of the 2022 cost of constructing a school.
21 Alisal Union School District DebtWatch Records. Web Retrieved September 20, 2022. https://debtwatch.treasurer.ca.gov/debt-comparison?type=type&value=K-14%20Schools&issuers=Alisa1%20Union%20Elementa ry%20Schoo1%20District%20(CSCRPA)&issuers=Alisal%20Union%20Schoo1%20District Background. "Item EE. Agreement - School 13 Master Plan". Alisal Union School District Board Meeting. September 14. 2022 Meeting. http://go.boarddocs.com/ca/alisal/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CHVW2482C078 CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PAGE 33
SECTION 2: DISTRICT CAPITAL FUNDS & PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 10/24/2022 Table 8
Estimated Project Contribution Summary
Total Estimated
Unit Type # Units Total SF (Rounded) Contributions by District Alisal USD
Capital Budget Contributions
One Time Developer Fees Alternatives [SMillion, Rounded):
2022 Level 2 Fees 3,534 units 5.9 M $25.1 M
Assessed Value & Bonding Capacity Growth :
Assessed Value 1.25% Bonding 2.% Bonding Capacity
AV Source
(2022$) Capacity (Measure M & A, only)
Estimated Project AV $1.75 B $21.8 M $47.2 M
Existing GO Bonds Funds Dedicated for a New School
Available/Budgeted Measure M Funds $10 M
Total CASP Capital Budget Contributions $56.9-$82.3 M
Cost of an Elementary School (2022$)
Estimated Site Development & Construction Cost $54 M
Conclusion
Planned growth that is anticipated, comes in regular increments, and is understood by the school listrict facility and fiscal planners is the most beneficial to the school district and the community This growth helps to offset operational budget losses due to enrollment decline and create
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PAGE 34
INFORMATION & MATERIALS REVIEWED:
A. School Facilities Needs Analysis Reports prepared for AUSD in 2018, 2019, and 2020 by Cooperative Strategies, and prepared for AUSD in 2021 and 2022 by School Facility Consultants. Available in AUSD School Board Agenda Archives and through public records requests. URLs are as follows:
i. 2018 SFNA:
https://www.alisal.org/cms/lib/CA02215153/Centricity/Domain/208/IX.A.%20Pu blic%20Hearing%20on%20School%20Facilities%20Needs%20Analysis.pdf; ii. 2019 SFNA: URL Unavailable;
ili. 2020 SFNA:
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/alisal/Board.nsf/files/BRKQTC6AB2AD/Sfile/SFNA Alisal 1920_Fn_8.5.20.pdf;
iv. 2021 SNA: URL Unavailable;
v. 2022 SFNA: URL Unavailable;
B. Developer Fee Justification Studies prepared for AUSD in 2018 and 2020 by Cooperative Strategies. Available in AUSD School Board Agenda Archives as follows:
i. 2018 DFJS: URL Unavailable;
ii. 2020 DFJS:
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/alisal/Board.nsf/files/BQLP5K629BEC/Sfile/AlisalU nionSD_ FS 20200604 Fn.pdf.
C. The 2015 Facility Master Plan prepared for AUSD by Aedis Architects. Available on AUSD Website:
https://www.alisal.org/cms/lib/CA02215153/Centricity/Domain/197/FINALREPORT7-17-15 small.pdf.
D. The 2018-2021 Agreement between AUSD and Alisal Teachers' Association. Available on the AUSD Website:
https://www.alisal.org/cms/lib/CA02215153/Centricity/Domain/214/2018-21ATAcontractAp proved4-10-19.pdf.
E.
California Department of Education Enrollment Data for AUSD for the school years 2000-2001 to 2021-2022, via Dataquest public database. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
F. California Department of Education Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment Data for AUSD for the school years 2013-2014 to 2020-2021, via Dataquest public database. https://dg.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/tkreports/TkLevels.aspx?cdscode=27659610000000&year=2 020-21.
G. The 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) for the CASP. https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/community-development/documents-public-r eview/accordion/notice-availability-central-area-specific-plan-draft-environmental-impact-re port-and-draft-specific.
H. The 2020 Final EIR certified by the City for the CASP, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR from AUSD.
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/sites/default/files/departments_files/community_development files/attachment_17_final _program eir_errata_sheet_response_to_comments and _mitigation _monitoring_and_reporting_program.pdf.
I. 2021-2022 Fiscal Year Assessed Value and Bond Tax Rates by AUSD, obtained via Monterey County 21-22 Tax Rate Book.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/106941/63772909069590000
0. J. The 2022-2023 Adopted Budget for AUSD.
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/alisal/Board.nsf/files/CFEMZB5DA495/Sfile/July%201%20Bud get%2022-23.pdf.
K. Live Birth Data for California, Monterey County, by ZIP Code from California Department of Public Health. https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/cdph_live-birth-by-zip-code.
L. Ballot Information from 2006 and 2016 General Obligation Bond Elections Measures A & M.
i. 2006 Measure Information:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/mnt/meas/A/;
ii. 2016 Measure Information:
https://ballotpedia.org/Alisal_Union School District, California, Bond Issue, Measure_M_(November_2016).
M. 2017 and 2021 State Board of Education Debt Limit Waivers. i. 2017:https://salinastaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-03-09-Tax-an d-Debt-Waivers-California-State-Board-of-Education.pdf; il. 2021: https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr21/agenda202105.asp.
N. Office of Public School Construction's State Allocation Board (SAB) Form 50-01 Calculator and Instructions.
i. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Forms/SAB-50-01_ADA.pdf; ii. https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/ab1014/.
O. CA Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 1859.40 through 1859.43. https://lawrina.com/us-law/state/california/regulations/title-2/division-2/chapter-3/subchapter -4/group-1/subgroup-5-s/artic/e-5/section-1859-40/
P. State Funding Status via the SAB August 2022 Meeting Agenda. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Agenda-Items/2022/08-August/Augustl52 022SABAgenda-ADA.pdf?la=en&hash=5EA42E5B090D4CFBDCBF1C496C47E884E58D 1935.
Q. Assembly Bill 75(2021-2022) and Senate Bill 22(2021-2022) Summaries and Status information obtained via Leginfo.
i. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220A B75;
ii. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB
22. R. Fremont Elementary State Funding Application SAB Form 50-04 obtained via public information request to the Office of Public School Construction. (OPSC Online Account Login Required)
i. https://www.webapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/OPSCOnline/wizard/5004/Review/61104 /2021-08-03T17:25:35.47925/VersionL.
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A:
CENTRAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT & ALISAL UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT
Santa Rita
San Juan Grad
thridge Moll E Boronda Rd
E Boronda Rd
Central Area Specific Plan
Harden Ranch
Shopping Center Arcadia Way
McKinnon St Emerald Dr Pescadero Dr Coventry St
El Dorado Dr Nantucket Biva
W Alvin Dr. E Alvin Dr Calaveras Dr
John Steinbeck ES
vable or
Creekside ES
Reata St
Elwood St Ramona Ave Constitution Bing
E Laurel Dr
Natividad
IS 1011 N Main St Maryal Dr Medical Conter 10 woung Alisal Union School District /irginia Rocca
Rosarita Or Barton ES
iris Dr Frank Paul ES
Lupin Dr
E Bernal Dr Alamo Way
Pacific Ave
Dr. Oscar F. Loya
Sherwood Dr St Edward's o Green St
Mise di Sancter
IS ISSO Pa bes p10
N Main St
2nd Ave
Fremont St Monte Bella Bite
E Market St *i Sanborn Ra Eucalyptus Dr Wiliams Rd
Roosevelt 5t Cross Are Denis Are
Salinas
Sycamore Ra
is pepajos E Alisal St
EXHIBIT B:
ALISA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TRENDS
EXHIBIT B
Alisal Union School District
Enrollment Trends and School Information for AUSD
Schools October 24th, 2022
Enrollment
School Driving Dist. 2021-22 5-YR 10-YR EMP Excess Seats Trend Trend Capacity (+/)
Closest Schools to CASP Project:
Creekside ES 0.6 mi 571 - 19.9% - 15.9% 675 104
Frank Paul ES 1.3 mi 658 -18.8% -20.7% 800 142
John E. Steinbeck ES 0.7 mi 553 - 18.6% -18.6% 735 182
Virginia Rocca Barton ES 1.7 mi 579 -26.6% -18.7% 800 221 SUBTOTAL 649
Additional Nearby Schools :
Alisal Community 2.8 mi 562 -26.8% - 15.5% 810 248
Bardin Elementary 3.6 mi 626 -12.3% -34.8% 750 124
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 2.2 mi 682 -16.4% 825 143
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Academy 2.9 mi 603 +0.8% +36.7% 600 Fremont Elementary 3.9 mi 783 -7.6% - 7.0% 875 92
Jesse G. Sanchez Elementary 3.0 mi 771 -8.5% 10.1% 850 79 Monte Bella Elementary 2.5 mi 835 +15.3% 800 -35
Oscar F. Loya Elementary 2.0 mi 628 -10.2% -26.0% 800 172 SUBTOTAL 820
TOTAL EXCESS SEATS IN 2021-22 1469
Notes: Enrollment for schools web retrieved from California Department of Education DataQuest on September 16th, 2022.
Enrollment trend calculations done by JCJ Partners LLC and rounded to the nearest tenth.
The 2021-22 School Year Enrollment is used as the basis of comparison for enrollment trend calculations.
Monte Bella ES was previously name Tiburcio Vasque: ES and the name change happened in 2016-17.
Monte Bella ES opened in 2013 so there is no 10-YR Enrollment Trend available.
Driving distance measured from the southern edge of the Central Area Specific Plan Project (Intersection of East Boronda Rd and Hemingway Drive) to the entrance of the relative school.
Capacity shown in the table is retrieved from the 2015 AUSD Facilities Master Plan (FMP).
EXHIBIT C:
METHODOLOGY OF JCJ PARTNERS COHORT PROJECTIONS
EXHIBIT C
JCJ Partners Cohort Projection Methodology:
-Utilizes the current and previous six years of enrollment (2015-16 through 2021-22) as reported for the October CBEDS and available from the CDE DataQuest.
-For all grades, calculates the percentage change in enrollment from a current grade to the next lower grade in the previous year. (e.g., the percentage change from 1st grade in 2020-21 to 2nd grade in 2021-22, etc.). -Depending on scenario, applies a straight average (unweighted) to the three school years prior to the COVID Pandemic (2017-18 through 2019-20), the latest three years (2019-20 through 2021-22), or the last five years (2017-18 through 2019-20). Also considers the change from 2020-21 to 2021-22 for the 1-year scenario, and a 0% annual cohort change for the No Change scenario.
-Applies these average per-grade percentage changes in enrollment to each grade for each year of projection. -Calculates the percentage annual change of total number of births from 2017 through 2020 by residency, from ZIP Codes 93905, -06, and -08, to represent children old enough to enter KG in 2021-2024. -Applies the percentage change in birth rates from 2017 to 2018 to the KG class of 2021-22 to calculate the approximate KG class size in 2022-23, continuing until the 2024-25 school year, when birth data becomes unavailable. After 2024-25, the 5-year straight average of annual changes in births from 2015 to 2020 was applied to each additional year.
-California is opening Transitional Kindergarten (TK) to all 4-year-olds into Transitional Kindergarten by the 2025-26 school year. Since it's conception, TK has been open to students born from September to November of the 4th prior year (25% of 4-year-olds). As of the 2022-23 school year, children born in December and January will be allowed to enroll (~41.7%). In 2023-24 school year, two more months of births become eligible to enroll (February & March), amounting to ~ 58.3% of 4-year-olds). Children born in April and May will be added in 2024-25 (75%), and all four-year-olds will be eligible in 2025-26 (100%). -CDE Dataquest information provides separate TK enrollment until the 2020-21 school year. For the 2021-22 school year, projections assume the average percentage of TK enrollment out of the combined TK/KG class sizes from 2017-18 through 2019-20 school years (i.e., TK enrollment represented an average of ~17.6% of the combined TK & KG class size) and applied this to the combined TK & KG class size reported for 2021-22. -To estimate the phase-in of TK students from 2022-23 to 2025-26, these percentages of 4-year-olds by year were applied to the KG class of the same school year (41.7% in 22-23, 58.3% in 23-24, 75% in 24-25, and 100% in 2025-26 and each subsequent year.
-To account for future student generation from the Central Area Specific Plan, the 2022 SFNA SGR were applied to the total number of units planned for development, resulting in approximately 1,384 K-6 students. -Total estimated student generation was divided between twenty years and seven grades for each year, rounded up to approximately 10 students per grade, per year. As TK is a duplicate of KG, an additional 10 students were added to enrollment projections, resulting in 80 students generated every year, and adding up to approximately 1,590 total students (~200 more students than expected using SFNA SGR).
EXHIBIT D:
ENROLLMENT VS. CAPACITY AT CASP BUILDOUT
EXHIBIT D
Capacity at Buildout of CASP
Charts 1 and 2(below) utilize the 25-year projections of District & Nearby School enrollment under existing conditions and with the assumed addition of students from CASP.
Chart 1
Long-Term Districtwide Enrollment Projection at Buildout Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections
12000
Enrollment History, Enrol ment Projections
Max Local Capacity A
10000 State Standard Capacity A
FMP Capacity
8000
6000
NI2#0#11000##717787811111
A State Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) 4 Maximum Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) FMP Existing Capacity 3-Year Average (Pre-COVID, 2017-18 thru 2019-20) • 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) • 1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) • No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in)
EXHIBIT D
Chart 2
Long-Term Nearest Schools at CASP Buildout
Capacity vs. Enrollment Projections
4000
Enrollment History Enrollment Projections
Max Local Capacity A
3500
State Standard Capacity A
3000
FMP Capacity A
2500
2014-15
A State Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) A Maximum Loading Standard (w/ TK Assumption) FMP Existing Capacity • 5-Year Avg (Including COVID, 2017-18 to 2021-22) • 3-Year Average (Including COVID, 2019-20 thru 2021-22) • 3-Year Pre-Covid (2017-18 thru 2019-20) • 1-Year Change (2020-21 to 2021-22) No Change (KG from 2020-21 each year, including TK phase-in) From these long-term projections, it is clear that projected enrollment including students from CASP development will not exceed the existing District capacity.
1 CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, SBN 203010
City Attorney
2 CITY OF SALINAS
200 Lincoln Avenue
3 Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256
4 Email: [email protected]
5 JAMES G. MOOSE, SBN 119374
ELIZABETH R. POLLOCK, SBN 259645
6 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
7 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-2745
8 Email: moose @rmmenvirolaw.com
Email: [email protected]
JOEL FRANKLIN, SBN 69705
10 LAW OFFICES OF JOEL FRANKLIN
225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407 EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 11 Carmel, California 93923-8674
[GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
Telephone: (831) 649-2545
12 Email: Joel(@JFranklinLaw.net
13 Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF SALINAS
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
16 Case No. 20CV003402
ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, and
17 SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
18 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN 19 SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S
CITY OF SALINAS; and DOES 1 THROUGH OPPOSITION TO FIRST AMENDED 20 10, inclusive, PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF
MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
Respondent and Defendant, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
22 DOES 11 THROUGH 20, inclusive,
Judge: The Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
Real Parties in Interest. Dept.: 14
24 Date: December 19, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
25 26 Filing Date of Action: December 17, 2020
Exhibit 7
28 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 I, Olga Bevz, declare:
2 1. I make this declaration in support of Respondent's Opposition to the First Amended 3 Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by 4 the City of Salinas (City). The matters stated below are based on my personal knowledge, background, 5 research and analysis, and experience and training, and if called upon as witness, I can and would 6 competently testify thereto.
7 2.
I am the President of JCJ Partners, LLC (JCJ Partners), which I formed in 2018 with my colleague Jeanette Justus, who had been operating her own firm (predecessor to JCJ Partners) since 9 1998 and is now the Principal in JCJ Partners. Located in Irvine, California, JCJ Partners assists school 10 districts and developers to plan new school facilities, negotiate mitigation agreements, create = comprehensive school facilities programs, prepare school sections of environmental documents for new 12 communities, and facilitate district boundary adjustments. JCJ Partners has expertise with respect to 13 planning for efficient schools in new residential communities, determining the impacts of new 14 development, maximizing state New Construction funding, resolving community issues related to 15 overcrowded schools or the perception of overcrowded schools, and using public financing for 16 constructing new schools.
17 3. As President, I prepare concepts, strategies, and school mitigation agreements to help to 18 ensure that 21st century school facilities are delivered on-time for new homeowners. I also design 19 methodologies for quantitative models and analyses that determine student generation rates, needs and 20| costs projections, cash flows and development impact fees. I analyze requirements of California 21 Education Code and other statutes and work on issues such as district organization, surplus property, 22 developer fees, state funding programs and educational enrichment programs. I have approximately 20 23 years of professional experience in dealing with issues of these kinds. I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree 24 in Political Science and English Literature from University of California, Irvine and a Certificate in 25 Light Construction and Development Management from the University of California, Irvine, Extension 26 Program.
27 28
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 East Boronda LLC, a developer and landowner within the Central Area Specific Plan ("CASP"), retained JCJ Partners to gather and analyze data from reliable sources regarding student 3 generation rates and school funding as related to statements made by Petitioner Alisal Union School 4 District ("AUSD) in the above-captioned litigation. The statements at issue occur in Petitioners' Opening Brief in Support of First Amended Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint 6 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Petitioners' Opening Brief" or "РОВ"). 7 In summary, AUSD's statements contend that AUSD's existing enrollment exceeds 8 current school capacity; that it is unlikely that AUSD will have the funds to build one or more new 9 schools to house the students generated by the CASP; and that, as a result, AUSD will need to modify 10 its existing facilities to accommodate the influx of the CASP students. I will address the accuracy of 11 each of these contentions below. For reasons I will explain, I find AUSD's contentions to be factually 12 inaccurate and misleading because AUSD does not need additional classrooms, does not need to 13 modify facilities, and does not need new schools to accommodate the students generated by the CASP. 14 6. Prior to preparing this Declaration, I first prepared the technical report entitled "Central 15 Area Specific Plan Analysis of School Enrollments, Capacity, and Capital Funding in Alisal Union 16 School District," dated October 21st, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (referred to herein as 17 "JCJ Partners Analysis"). Our technical report is in a format very similar to what I would use for a 18 document formally submitted to a school district or a private client. In preparing the technical report, I 19 employed techniques and methods, and used language, of the kinds I would employ in preparing a 20| document for a school district or a private client. 21 7. Prior to preparing the JCJ Partners Analysis, I reviewed the following information and 22 materials:
23 A. School Facilities Needs Analysis Reports prepared for AUSD in 2018, 2019, and 2020 24 by Cooperative Strategies, and prepared for AUSD in 2021 and 2022 (draft) by School 25 Facility Consultants:
26 a. 2018 SFNA (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2); 27 b. 2019 SFNA (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3):
28 3
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 c. 2020 SFNA (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4); 2 d. 2021 SFNA (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5); 3 e. 2022 SFNA (draft) (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6); 4 B. Developer Fee Justification Studies (SFJSs) prepared for AUSD in 2018 and 2020 by 5 Cooperative Strategies. Available in AUSD School Board Agenda Archives as follows:
6 a. 2018 DFJS (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 7):
7 b. 2020 DFJS (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 8); 8 C. The 2015 Facility Master Plan prepared for AUSD by Aedis Architects a true and 9 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 9); 10 D. The 2018-2021 Agreement between AUSD and Alisal Teachers' Association (a true and 11 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10); 12 California Department of Education Enrollment Data for AUSD for the school years 2000-2001 through 2021-2022 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 14 Exhibit 11);
15 • California Department of Education Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment Data for 16 AUSD for the school years 2013-2014 through 2020-2021 (a true and correct copy of 17 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 12);
18 G. The 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared pursuant to the 19 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) for the 20| CASP (contained in the administrative record for this litigation beginning at AR 838); 21 H. The 2020 Final EIR certified by the City for the CASP, including responses to 22 comments on the Draft EIR from AUSD (contained in the administrative record for this 23 litigation beginning at AR 5855);
24 2021-2022 Fiscal Year Assessed Value and Bond Tax Rates by AUSD, obtained via 25 Monterey County 21-22 Tax Rate Book (a true and correct copy of which is attached 26 hereto as Exhibit 13);
28 4
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The 2022-2023 Adopted Budget for AUSD (a true and correct copy of which is attached 2 hereto as Exhibit 14);
3 K. Live Birth Data for California, Monterey County, by ZIP Code from California 4 Department of Public Health (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 5 Exhibit 15);
6 Ballot Information from 2006 and 2016 General Obligation Bond Elections Measures A & M:
a. 2006 Measure Information (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 9 Exhibit 16);
10 2016 Measure Information (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 11 Exhibit 17);
12 M. 2017 and 2021 State Board of Education Debt Limit Waivers (true and correct copies of 13 which are attached hereto as Exhibits 18(2017) and 19(2021); 14 N. Office of Public School Construction's State Allocation Board (SAB) Form 50-01 15 Calculator and Instructions (true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as 16 Exhibits 20 and 21);
17 CA Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 1859.40 through 1859.43; 18 P. State Funding Status via the SAB August 2022 Meeting Agenda (a true and correct copy 19 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 22);
20 Q. Assembly Bill 75(2021-2022) and Senate Bill 22(2021-2022) (true and correct copies 21 of which are attached hereto as Exhibits 23 and 24); and 22 R. Fremont Elementary State Funding Application SAB Form 50-04 obtained via public 23 information request to the Office of Public School Construction (a true and correct copy 24 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 25).
25 OBSERVATIONS, ANALYSIS AND OPINIONS
26 8. Based on my extensive background, knowledge, and understanding of school enrollment 27 and funding, and my extensive research as described above, it is my professional opinion that many of 28 5
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AUSD's statements related to school enrollment and funding found in Petitioners' Opening Brief are 2 unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue, for reasons set forth herein and in Exhibit 1 3 attached hereto (the JCJ Partners Analysis). Below I address a number of specific statements made by 4 AUSD and explain why they are misleading and deceptive. 5 9. Petitioners' Opening Brief contains the statement that,"[hjere, neither the DEIR nor the 6 FEIR for the CASP adequately informed the public that due to the high probability of a lack of 7 sufficient funding to build new schools, there will be significant environmental impacts... due to the 8 inevitable need to modify the Districts' facilities to accommodate the influx of students." (POB, p. 11:22-25.) This statement is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue for the following 10 reasons:
11 a. Demographic trends and existing available school capacity in AUSD show that 12 AUSD has experienced declining enrollment since the 2015-2016 school year, and will continue to 13 experience declining enrollment. The decrease in enrollment will accommodate the projected 1,384 14 students from the CASP in existing facilities without modifications, as described in detail in the attached 15 JCJ Partners Analysis. I draw this conclusion based on the following facts:
16 (i) AUSD enrolled 7,851 students in the 2021-2022 school year. Enrollment 17 has declined by 1,431 students from the peak of 9,282 total students in 2015-2016. 18 (ii) The number of births in the zip codes served by the AUSD has declined 19 by 18.6% from 2010 to 2020, a larger decrease than in Monterey County overall (-17.2%) and in 20| statewide births (-17.6%) over the same period.
21 (iii) A decline in births leads to lower incoming preschool and kindergarten 22 classes in 4 to 5 years, increasing districtwide decline over time. 23 Based on these facts, the AUSD enrollment decline is expected to continue in the coming years. 24 b. I used several enrollment projection methodologies, described below, which 25 show that AUSD will experience a continued overall decline in enrollment, not an increase in 26 enrollment as AUSD claims, even with full buildout of the CASP:
27 28
6 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(i) Based on the State Office of Public School Construction methodology for 2 projecting students (outlined in Cal. Code Regulations, title 2, sections 1859.40 through 1859.43), the maximum estimated 5-year districtwide AUSD student enrollment is 6,913 students in 2026-2027, 4 which is 938 fewer students than the enrollment of 7,851 in 2021-2022 and 2,369 fewer students than 5 the enrollment of 9282 students in the 2015-2016 school year. 6 (ii) Additionally, I used several other methodologies and data (outlined on 7 pages 13-14 of the JCJ Partners Analysis) to estimate future students, which include birth data, historical enrollment, the addition of a complete grade level under the new Universal Transitional Kindergarten Program, and student enrollment from the CASP. The most aggressive enrollment 10 scenario, which includes the addition of an estimated 470 CASP students, would result in 7,228 total 11 districtwide students by the 2029-30 school year, a decrease of more than 2,000 from AUSD's all-time 12 high enrollment of 9,282 students in the 2015-2016 school year. I also prepared enrollment projections 13 for the four schools nearest to the CASP, including the Creekside, Frank Paul, John Steinbeck, and 14 Virginia Rocca Barton Elementary Schools.
15 (iiii) All enrollment projections indicate that, even when all CASP students are 16 added only to the four nearest schools, enrollment will remain below enrollment of the previous years. 17 In 2019-2020, the four nearest schools enrolled 2,703 students. My projections estimate that the four 18 nearest schools would enroll approximately 2,462 students by 2030 and 2,589 students by the time the 19 CASP is fully built out, which is 114 fewer students than the 2019-2020 total enrollment in these four 20 schools. (See pages 14-21 and Exhibit D of JCJ Partners Analysis for visualizations of these 21 projections.)
22 C. I reviewed existing and available school capacity on a districtwide basis and at 23 the four schools nearest to the CASP.
24 The 2015 AUSD District Facility Master Plan reported a total of 406 classrooms 25 across AUSD's 12 schools and 136 classrooms at the four nearest schools to the CASP area. 26 Construction projects within the 12 existing AUSD schools completed since 2015 or currently under 27 28
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 construction are not expected to change the net existing capacity of school campuses. These classroom 2 counts were used to provide several existing capacity estimates as explained below. 3 e. The Facilities Master Plan identifies the total existing capacity of each campus, 4 equal to 9,320 total seats in AUSD and 3,010 total seats in the four nearest schools to the CASP area. 5 f. The JCJ Partners Analysis provides two additional estimates of AUSD's existing 6 capacity based on different Loading Standards, or students per classroom, applied to the reported 7 number of classrooms in the 2015 Facilities Master Plan. Ten percent of classrooms were assumed to 8 be used for Special Day Class classrooms and Transitional Kindergarten classrooms. g. The first Loading Standard is from the State School Facilities Program, which 10 funds new school construction projects. These standards, as described on page 18 of JCJ Partners 11 Analysis, result in a total existing capacity of 9,647 seats for the District, and 3,231 existing seats at the 12 four nearest schools in the 2021-2022 school year. The second Loading Standard set is based on the 13 maximum number of students per class as agreed upon between the Alisal Teachers Association and 14 AUSD. These Maximum Local Loading Standards are described on page 19 of the JCJ Partners 15 Analysis and result in 11,523 total existing seats in the District, as well as 3,860 existing seats at the 16 four nearest schools, in the 2021-2022 school year.
17 h. As shown in Charts 6 and 7 of the JCJ Partners Analysis on pages 20-21, and 18 supported by long-term projections through buildout of CASP in Exhibit D of the same analysis, there 19 is existing and projected available capacity districtwide and at the nearest schools, even with the 20 addition of CASP students and the complete Transitional Kindergarten grade. 21 10. LAUSD claims that "it is undisputed that there were potentially significant environmental 22 impacts related to the need of the Districts to modify their existing facilities that went unanalyzed in the 23 FEIR, and intentionally so." (POB, p. 13:3-5.) This statement is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue because, as outlined above and shown in Charts 6 and 7 of the JCJ Partners 25 Analysis, and supported by long-term projections through buildout of the CASP in Exhibit D of the 26l same analysis, existing available school capacity will continue to exceed enrollment districtwide and at 27 28
8 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
the nearest schools even with the addition of CASP students and the complete Transitional Kindergarten. No modification of campuses specific to CASP students is required. 3 11. AUSD claims that "[i]t is Undisputed that There is Insufficient Funding for New 4 Schools." (POB, p. 13:6.) This statement is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue because 5 no additional classrooms or schools will be required and:
6 a. School district capital funds can include state funding, developer fees, local 7 general obligation bonds, and special district taxes. The capital budget funds modernization, 8 construction, and equipment of school facilities used to house students. Capital funding such as school 9 developer fees cannot be used for operations (i.e., hiring teachers or administrators). 10 b. The AUSD has substantial capital funds available for construction of new school 11 facilities, including the following sources:
12 (i) Historically, the AUSD has received almost $95 million in capital 13 funding from the State Facility Program. The program is currently backlogged, but school districts 14 continue to submit new projects, which are placed on the Applications Received Beyond Bond 15 Authority List.
16 (ii) This list will be reviewed and funded when funding is made available.
While new construction projects are typically funded by statewide bonds, Governor Gavin Newsom 18 allocated $1.3 billion from the 2022 State Budget Surplus to projects currently in line. Additional 19 funding is expected if the 2023 State Budget carries a surplus. (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 24.) 20 (iii) AUSD is currently eligible for 650 K-6 new construction seats, and it 21 currently has one application awaiting review. Upon review, I concluded that AUSD must use the State 22 Allocation Board Form 50-01 enrollment projections to update its eligibility. (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 2324.)
24 (iv) If eligible, AUSD could apply for and receive funding to build new 25 schools or classrooms. Importantly, the large number of projected available student seats will result in a lack of eligibility for new construction funding as AUSD will have sufficient existing capacity for 27 future students.
28 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 •
2 (V) AUSD has received voter approval on two General Obligation bond 3 measures in the last twenty years: Measure A for $90 million in 2006, and Measure M for $70 million 4 in 2016. AUSD has approved the issuance of the entirety of Measure M funds, but approximately $58.7 5 million remains authorized under Measure A.
6 (Vi) According to information presented by AUSD to its Citizens Bond 7 Oversight Committee at the Special Meeting on January 7, 2021, AUSD budgeted $10 million of 8 Measure M funds for the construction of a new elementary school in the CASP. In September 2022, the 9 AUSD Board entered into a contract with architects to design a new school within the CASP. However, 10 the AUSD staff report on the Contract Item for the Board's September 14, 2022, meeting stated that 11 there was no short-term need for a new school:
12 "At the time [of Measure M voter approval and Measure M fund budgeting for a new elementary school, nearly 9000 students were enrolled in the District; 13 however, enrollment has since declined consistently, and currently stands at around 14 1500 students. Though the District has no immediate need for an additional elementary school, enrollment is expected to once again increase in the near future and the District intends to move forward with building its 13th school within the next 10 years." 16 (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 33, italics added.)
17 (vii) AUSD has applied for and received two waivers from the State Board of 18 Education to allow issuing debt over the statutory maximum of 1.25% of Assessed Value of property 19 within the District. The State Board of Education waiver allows AUSD to levy up to 2.7% of AUSD 20 assessed value from Measure M or Measure A bonds until the beginning of 2035. 21 (vili) Buildout of the CASP will add approximately $1.75 billion in assessed 22 value (in 2022 dollars) to the existing real property value within AUSD. Under the statutory limit of 23 1.25%, this increased assessed value represents $21.8 million in potential new bonding capacity, while 24| the 2.7% waiver limit would allow $47.2 million in new bonding capacity for Measure A funding. 25 (ix) AUSD is still collecting property taxes for repayment of the local General 26 || Obligation bonds issued under approval from as far back as 1990. If not used to issue debt, the 27 28
10 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
additional property value from the Project would reduce the tax rates for all taxpayers in AUSD over 2 the next twenty years.
3 (x) AUSD is planning to adopt a Level 2 school impacts mitigation fee 4 (commonly referred to as a "developer fee") of $4.27 per square foot of residential construction, upon 5 adoption of the 2022 School Facilities Needs Analysis on October 26, 2022. 6 (xi) The CASP will include an estimated 5.9 million square feet of residential construction that would generate approximately $25.1 million in revenues from developer fees under 8 2022 Level 2 fees. These developer fees will increase with inflation over the 20-year build out of the CASP Project. Fees are paid by developers when building permits are pulled, meaning proceeds to 10 school districts will grow accordingly.
11 (XiI) While the construction of a new elementary school is not necessary, if 12 one were built, a majority of costs would be covered by the estimated $25 million in one-time 13 developer fees and the $10 million budgeted from Measure M. In addition, the growth in the assessed 14 value from CASP buildout can also generate local funding through voter-approved local bonds of at 15 least $21.8 million and as much as $47.2 million. (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 34.) 16 (xili) AUSD already owns the 12-acre parcel on which its 13th school would 17 | be constructed, should AUSD decide to build a new school. 18 12. AUSD claims that "the record is clear that there is insufficient funding for new 19 schools." (POB, p. 13:7.) This statement is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue because, 20 as previously described, CASP students can be accommodated in existing facilities. If AUSD chooses 21 to construct a new elementary school, a majority of costs would be covered by the estimated $25 22 million in one-time developer fees and the $10 million budgeted from Measure M. In addition, the 23 growth in the assessed value from buildout of the CASP can also generate local funding through voter- 24 approved local bonds of at least $21.8 million and as much as $47.2 million. (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 25 26 13. AUSD claims that "[t]he City was informed (or reminded) that because [sic] a lack of 27 funding it was highly unlikely that the new schools contemplated by the CASP would be built, and 28 11
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 instead there would be modifications to existing school sites. (AR005965-69.) The letters provided by 2 the Districts contained a detailed description of the school funding apparatus in California, and 3 demonstrated that due [sic] the high improbability of obtaining sufficient funding, AUSD would not be 4 able to construct the three new educational facilities assumed by the FEIR." (POB, pp. 13:27-14:5.) 5 The statement indicating a "high improbability of obtaining sufficient funding" to build three new 6 educational facilities is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue because:
7 a. Three new educational facilities will not be needed to accommodate CASP students. As previously described, CASP students can be accommodated in existing schools without expansion of the existing classroom facilities.
10 b. If AUSD chooses to construct a new elementary school, a majority of costs 11 would be covered by the estimated $25 million in one-time developer fees and the $10 million 12 budgeted from Measure M. In addition, the growth in the assessed value from CASP buildout can also 13 generate local funding through voter-approved local bonds of at least $21.8 million, and as much as 14 $47.2 million. (JCJ Partners Analysis, p. 34.)
15 14. AUSD claims that "[t]he City is not entitled to then discard the more likely scenario of 16 no new schools.... " (POB, p. 16:9-10.) This statement is misleading because, as previously described, 17 CASP students can be accommodated in existing schools without expansion of the existing school 18 classroom facilities.
19 15. AUSD claims that "li]t is undisputed that students are going to be generated by CASP 20 development..." (POB, p. 16:11) This statement is true, but based on the data presented herein, the 21 1,384 students projected to be generated by the CASP will not push school enrollment beyond existing 22 capacity, given the clear AUSD enrollment decline and AUSD's existing excess student capacity. 23 a. As previously discussed, AUSD has experienced significant enrollment decline 24 that is expected to continue even with the addition of CASP students and a complete Transitional 25 Kindergarten class.
26 b. As previously described, CASP students can be accommodated in existing 27 schools without expansion of facilities.
28 12
DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 C. School districts with declining enrollment suffer adverse impacts on the operational budget, as the state operational budget model is based on the number of students attending 3 schools.
4 d. Planned growth from new development that is anticipated and comes in regular 5 increments is understood by school districts' facility and fiscal planners to be the most beneficial to the 6 affected school district and the community.
7 e. Growth from the CASP will help AUSD in particular by both offsetting operational budget losses due to enrollment decline outside of the CASP and creating efficiencies when 9 students enter existing facilities.
10 16.. In conclusion, based on my extensive background, knowledge, and understanding of 11 school enrollment and funding, and my extensive research as described above, it is my professional 12 opinion that many of AUSD's statements related to school enrollment and funding found in Petitioners' 13 Opening Brief are unsubstantiated, inaccurate, misleading, and untrue, for reasons set forth herein and in 14 Exhibit 1 attached hereto (the JCJ Partners Analysis). AUSD is not at capacity. Rather, AUSD is 15 experiencing, and will continue to experience, a declining enrollment. And the influx of students from the 16 CASP will not result in the need for additional classrooms or modifications to existing facilities. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 18 and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 25th day of October, 2022, in Irvine, Orange 19|| County, California.
20 Olga Beuz
21 22
24 25
26 27
28 DECLARATION OF OLGA BEVZ IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION
TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402
2 3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 1, Megan Smith, am employed in the County of Sacramento. My business address is 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800, Sacramento, California 95814, and email address is [email protected]. I 5 am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. 6 I am familiar with Remy Moose Manley, LLP's practice for collection and processing mail 7 whereby mail is sealed, given the appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area.
Each day mail is collected and deposited in a USPS mailbox after the close of each business day. 8 9 On the date set forth below, I served the following:
RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY 10 WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
11 12 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL by causing a true copy thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to the following person(s) or representatives) as listed 13 below, and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. 14 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by causing a true copy thereof to be electronically 15 delivered to the following person(s) or representative(s) at the email addresses) listed below, via the Court's approved electronic filing service provider. I did not receive any electronic 16 message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION By submitting an electronic version of the documents) to OneLegal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. 18 19 BY PERSONAL SERVICE by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-delivered to the following person(s) or representatives) at the addresses) listed below. 20 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day 22 of October 2022, at Sacramento, California.
23 24
25 Megan Smith
26 27
28 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Alisal Union School District, et al. v. City of Salinas Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003402
2 SERVICE LIST
3 4 Sloan R. Simmons Counsel for Petitioners,
Michael R. Linden ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and SALINAS 5 LOZANO SMITH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Ste. 200
6 Monterey, CA 93940-5748
7 Phone: (831) 646-1501
Email: [email protected]
8 Email: [email protected] VIA E-SERVICE
9 Christopher A. Callihan Co-Counsel for Respondent,
City Attorney CITY OF SALINAS
10 CITY OF SALINAS
11 200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
12 Phone: (831) 758-7256 VIA E-SERVICE
Email: [email protected]
13 JOEL FRANKLIN Co-Counsel for Respondent,
LAW OFFICES OF JOEL FRANKLIN CITY OF SALINAS
14 225 Crossroads Blvd., Suite 407
15 Carmel, California 93923-8674
Phone: (831) 649-2545
16| Email: [email protected] VIA E-SERVICE
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 West Headnotes (16)
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.
CONCERNED DUBLIN CITIZENS 11] Environmental Law - Duty of government et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, bodies to consider environment in general V. It is state policy in California that the long-
CITY OF DUBLIN et al., Defendants and Respondents; term protection of the environment shall be the Avalonbay Communities, Inc., Real Party in Interest. guiding criterion in public decisions.
A135790
12] Environmental Law & Duty of government
Filed March 7, 2013 bodies to consider environment in general The first step in California Environmental
Synopsis
Background: Citizens filed petition for writ of mandate, Quality Act (CEQA) review is jurisdictional, seeking to challenge city's determination that proposed requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary residential development within transit center project was review in order to determine whether CEQA exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to a proposed activity. Cal. Pub. Res. review as a residential project consistent with a specific Code § 21000 plan for which an environmental impact report (EIR) had 3 Cases that cite this headnote been certified. The Superior Court, Alameda County, No.
RG11581959, Evelio M. Grillo, J., denied relief, and citizens appealed. 131 Environmental Law • Categorical
exclusion; exemptions in general
As part of preliminary California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review, the public agency
Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Pollak, J., held that:
must determine the application of any statutory
exemptions that would exempt the proposed
[1] Court would apply substantial evidence rule;
project from further review. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
[2] development phase was a "residential development" for $ 21000 purposes of CEQA exemption; 3 Cases that cite this headnote [3] development phase was consistent with specific plan; 14] Environmental Law •- Categorical
exclusion; exemptions in general
[4] program EIR did not preclude city from determining that phase was exempt from further CEQA review; If, as a result of preliminary review, the agency finds the project is exempt from
[5] increase in residential units was not a significant change California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which required supplemental EIR; and under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary; the agency
[6] new air quality guidelines did not constitute new may prepare and file a notice of exemption, citing information which required supplemental EIR. the relevant section of the CEQA Guidelines and including a brief statement of reasons to support
the finding. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000; Cal.
Affirmed. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15000
Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Review of 2 Cases that cite this headnote Administrative Decision.
WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Governr Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 as sufficient to support the conclusion reached;
15] Mandamus - Scope and extent in general
all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in
In considering a petition for a writ of mandate in support of the agency's action and the court a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) indulges all reasonable inferences to support the case, the appellate court's task on appeal is agency's findings, if possible. Cal. Pub. Res. the same as the trial court's; thus, review Code § 21000 is conducted independent of the trial court's
findings. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 4 Cases that cite this headnote Environmental Law s Assessments and
16] Environmental Law = Assessments and impact statements impact statements
Court of Appeal would apply the
substantial evidence rule when reviewing
city's determination that residential development
phase of transit center project was statutorily
(CEQA) may be upheld, the appellate court exempt from California Environmental Quality reviews the administrative record to see that Act (CEQA) review as a residential project substantial evidence supports each element of the consistent with a specific plan for which an exemption. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified, insofar as the exemption turned on
4 Cases that cite this headnote
whether updating of the EIR was required. Cal.
Gov't Code § 65457; Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
17] Environmental Law - Categorical 21166
exclusion; exemptions in general
4 Cases that cite this headnote
Environmental Law - Assessments and
impact statements
When determining whether an agency's findings 110] Environmental Law & Land use in general concerning the use of a statutory exemption A residential development project that is from the California Environmental Quality consistent with a specific plan for which an Act (CEQA) may be upheld, there must be environmental impact report (EIR) already has substantial evidence that an activity is within been certified ordinarily is statutorily exempt the exempt category of projects; that evidence from further California Environmental Quality may be found in the information submitted in Act (CEQA) review regardless of possible connection with the project, including at any environmental impacts of the project. Cal. Gov't hearings that the agency chooses to hold. Cal. Code § 65457; Cal. Pub. Res. Code $ 21166 Pub. Res. Code § 21000
3 Cases that cite this headnote
4 Cases that cite this headnote
[11] Environmental Law - Land use in general
18] Environmental Law - Assessments and Environmental Law •- Surface impact statements transportation; highways and bridges
Application of substantial evidence review Phase of transit center development project in the context of a challenge to an which, as proposed, contained only residential agency's use of a statutory exemption to the units was a "residential development" for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes of statutory California Environmental means the appellate court determines whether Quality Act (CEQA) exemption, even if the administrative record contains relevant development plans and agreement authorized information that a reasonable mind might accept up to 25,000 square feet of commercial usage WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 and site was zoned for mixed use, as any
4 Cases that cite this headnote
future commercial use would require compliance
with the site development review process,
which included compliance with applicable 114] Environmental Law • Land use in general environmental review. Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; Environmental Law • Surface Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21166 transportation; highways and bridges Increase in residential units on parcel, which
was part of transit center development project
[12] Environmental Law em Land use in general that previously had been issued a program Environmental Law - Surface environmental impact report (EIR), was not transportation; highways and bridges a significant change to the specific plan Residential-only site development within larger which required further environmental review transit center development was consistent with under the California Environmental Quality Act specific plan for which environmental impact (CEQA); plan expressly authorized reallocation report (EIR) was certified under the California of residential units within the center, and number Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), even of residential units within the center as a whole though specific plan was was not increased. Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; Cal. while the transit center was designed to Pub. Res. Code § 21166; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, combine residential and commercial use in § 15162.
a sustainable, transit friendly environment,
1 Case that cites this headnote
commercial development in specific site was
not required by the specific plan, transit center
retained its mixed-use character whether or 115] Environmental Law • Updated or not each of the several sites within the center supplemental statements; recirculation included mixed usage, and the specific plan New air quality threshold guidelines did not stated only that retail uses were "encouraged" constitute "new information" which required rather than required. Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; a supplemental environmental impact report Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21166 (EIR) for residential phase of transit center development, as impacts of the project on air
3 Cases that cite this headnote
quality were already considered in the program
environmental impact report issued under the
[13] Environmental Law •- Land use in general California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Law •- Surface for the development, and the potential effects transportation; highways and bridges of greenhouse gases were known and could City's decision to prepare a program level have been addressed in conjunction with the environmental impact report (EIR) for transit certification of the EIR at the time it was issued. center development project did not preclude Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § city from later determining that particular 21166(c); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15162. development phase which consisted solely
3 Cases that cite this headnote
of residential development was exempt from
further California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review as a residential project 116] Environmental Law - Updated or consistent with a specific plan; EIR did not supplemental statements; recirculation require a specific level of environmental review, The adoption of guidelines for analyzing and and city's determination as to whether CEQA evaluating the significance of data does not exemption applied was itself an environmental constitute new information requiring a new review. Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; Cal. Pub. Res. environmental impact report (EIR) under the Code § 21166; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15168. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 the underlying information was otherwise known 2
The city's request for judicial notice of Dublin
or should have been known at the time the EIR
Municipal Code section 8.28.030(e), which is
was certified. Cal. Gov't Code § 65457; Cal. Pub.
referenced in appellants' brief but not contained in
Res. Code § 21166(c)
the record, is granted.
See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.
2005) Real Property, § 836.
Factual and Procedural History
4 Cases that cite this headnote
The transit center is "a high-density mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented **686 development" adjacent to Bay
Area Rapid Transit's East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. As stated in the 2002 plan for the transit center, the objective of **685 Alameda County Superior Court, Honorable Evelio
the larger project is, among other things, to "1) Construct ] M. Grillo. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG11581959)
a state-of-the-art. urban-scale, mixed-use employment,
Attorneys and Law Firms residential and retail center based on close accessibility of inter-modal transportation opportunities: rapid transit, LOZEAU & DRURY, Richard T. Drury, Michael R. Lozeau, bus transit, vehicle access and nonmotorized transportation Christina M. Caro, Oakland, Counsel for plaintiffs and modes. ['l 2) Promotle] a pedestrian-friendly environment appellants within the transit center project where employees, residents and visitors are encouraged to walk or use other non-vehicular MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON, John modes of transportation. [9] 3) Increasel 1 employment Bakker, City Attorney, Amrit Kulkarni, Timothy D. Cremin, opportunities in the community through the development of Oakland, Counsel for defendants and respondents office, retail and similar employment-generating land uses, including a maximum of 2 million square feet of office
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Christopher J. Carr, Shay
space and 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail space. [9l Diveley, Miriam A. Vogel, Los Angeles, Counsel for real 4) Provid[e] up to 1,500 higher density dwelling units for party in interest
households desiring to live in a more urban setting, near work Opinion and public transit opportunities."
Pollak, J. In 2002, the city approved the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the transit center (the specific plan) and, in compliance *1304 Government Code section 65457 l provides an with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. exemption from environmental review for a residential Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), certified an environmental development that is consistent *1305 with a broader specific impact report (EIR) for the specific plan. The specific plan plan for which an environmental impact report previously includes a stage 1 development plan that establishes the has been certified. This appeal challenges the determination permitted land uses and development standards for future by respondents City of Dublin and the City Council of development projects within the transit center. the City of Dublin (collectively, the city) that the proposed development of a 7.2-acre parcel by real party in interest The EIR for the specific plan was prepared as a program AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (AvalonBay) within a larger EIR, pursuant to section 15168 of the CEOA *1306 Dublin Transit Village Center development (transit center), Guidelines. " It describes general impacts and mitigation for which an environmental impact report was previously measures for, among other things, the specific plan and the prepared and certified, qualifies for that exemption. We stage 1 development plan. The EIR analyzes the impacts find no error in the city's application of the exemption from full build-out of all uses authorized under the specific and therefore shall affirm the judgment denying appellants' plan and contains a detailed project description, setting petition for a writ of mandate. 2 forth specific locations for proposed uses, roadways, setback All statutory references are to the Government requirements, and other site-specific features. The EIR Code unless otherwise noted. analyzes environmental impacts in thirteen areas, includes WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 mitigation measures to address potential impacts, and and two *1307 multistory parking garages. After initial analyzes alternatives to the proposed transit center project. review by the city but prior to a vote on the project's approval, AvalonBay withdrew its plan in order to further revise the 3 All references to guidelines are to the CEQA project.
Guidelines (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et
On March 7, 2011, AvalonBay submitted its revised proposal seq.) developed by the Office of Planning and
for the development of site C. The latest plan differs from the Research and adopted by the California Resources
prior proposals in that it increases the number of residential Agency. We note that the specific plan EIR
units and eliminates the previously proposed retail space. The might also be characterized as a master plan EIR
project now includes 505 apartment units, a leasing center, a pursuant to Guidelines section 15175, which would
not significantly affect the analysis of any issue fitness center, two parking structures, and on-street parking spaces. The planning commission report prepared on the
considered in this opinion.
project explains that while ancillary commercial development The EIR anticipates that implementation of the transit is not being proposed at this time, "to maintain the look of center specific plan will require a number of "follow-on commercial development, commercial architecture is being actions," including approval of stage 2 development plans applied to the residential units fronting the central plaza at and site development review for future projects. The EIR the south end of the project, at the fitness center located states: "Prior to receiving final approvals for individual at the northeast corner of the project and for two units development projects within the Dublin Transit Center site facing Iron Horse Parkway just south of the fitness center:" allowed by this General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment At a subsequent planning commission meeting, AvalonBay described in this EIR, applicants must submit Stage 2 Planned confirmed that the ground floor units were being developed Development Rezoning requests to the City of Dublin. as residential but "would be able to be returned to retail space Stage 2 Rezoning includes specific information regarding in the future." AvalonBay explained that the basic project development proposals and land uses. Site Development description removes retail usage from the project because the Review (SDR) applications must also be approved by the City transit center already has 12,000 square feet of retail space of Dublin, to include precise information regarding building that has not been leased after four years, but that "the units architectural design, use of exterior materials, a specific site can be converted back to commercial and the two-story look layout, landscaping plans, conceptual signs plans and other of the area will remain in the event there is an opportunity to design details. Other applications may include parcel maps return those spaces to a retail component." to create individual building lots, consideration of grading and building permits, utility hook-ups by the Dublin San As anticipated by the specific plan, AvalonBay sought Ramon Services District (DRSD), granting of encroachment approval from the city of a stage 2 development plan and a site **687 permits by the City of Dublin, and filing of Notices development review (SDR) permit. AvalonBay also sought an of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board." amendment to the stage 1 development plan to reallocate 100 The EIR "anticipate[s] that additional environmental review residential units from site A to site C. 4 would occur at each of these stages of the project."
4 Under the stage 1 development plan adopted in 2002, AvalonBay also sought approval of a "Vesting the parcel at issue in this action was designated as site Tentative Tract Map" (map) so that the apartment C and was to include a maximum of 405 high density units could be converted to condominiums in the residential dwelling units and up to 25,000 square feet of future and approval of the standard development retail space. In 2007. AvalonBay submitted its first proposal agreement. Because AvalonBay was seeking to for development of site C. The project as initially proposed develop in site C more than the 405 residential units consisted of 405 apartment units, 22,895 square feet of initially authorized by the stage 1 development ground-floor retail space, a leasing center, fitness center, plan, an amendment to the stage 1 development and two multi-story parking garages. For economic reasons, plan was necessary but no further modification of AvalonBay did not immediately move forward with this the stage 1 development plan was required because proposal. In 2010, AvalonBay submitted a revised proposal the plan includes a provision authorizing the City that included 486 apartment units, 4,192 square feet of to exceed the dwelling unit limits established for commercial development, the leasing center, fitness center, each of the residential use sites if an equal number WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 of residential units are eliminated from other sites square feet of commercial space in the project site. The within the transit center, as AvalonBay proposed. site C project that was previously reviewed by the planning With respect to the proposed stage 2 development plan, the commission included 4,192 square feet of commercial space. planning commission report explains, "Most of the standards However, the inability to lease the existing retail/commercial and requirements of a Stage 2 Development Plan required space (12,750 sq ft) in Avalon's existing project has prompted by Chapter **688 8.32.030 B. of the Zoning Ordinance the applicant to eliminate the ancillary commercial space from were adopted in 2002 with the Stage 1 Planned Development the proposed project on site C. The applicant has not altered Zoning for all of Dublin Transit Center. The Stage 1 Planned the architectural character significantly of the buildings facing Development zoning established the permitted, conditionally the central plaza or Iron Horse Parkway where the retail permitted, and accessory land uses; site areas and proposed space was originally located. At the intersection of Campbell densities; maximum number of residential units *1308 and Green and Iron Horse the project incorporates a 4.223 square non-residential square footages; and a Master Landscaping foot fitness center which gives the visual impression of Plan. [9] The approved development standards contained commercial space. Additionally, the conversion of the retail in the Stage 1 Development Plan provide for development space to residential uses facing Iron Horse Parkway and the standards such as building height, number of stories, building central plaza will maintain the commercial architectural look setbacks and a parking ratio of 1.5 parking stalls per unit (Attachment 6)." and suggested high-density residential development in 4 or 5 stories either over podium parking or with the units *1309 Following a hearing on March 22, the planning 'wrapped' around the parking structures as is the case with commission approved the site development review and this project and Avalon's first project. [ The adopted Planned map and recommended that the city council approve Development zoning also limits ancillary retail and services the stage 1 development plan amendment, the stage 2 to the ground floor frontage along Iron Horse Parkway. The development plan, and the development agreement. The proposed development of Site C complies with the Stage 1 planning commission found that the project is "exempt from Planned Development Zoning for the Dublin Transit Center CEOA pursuant to **689 Government Code section 65457 as it is compatible with the Dublin Transit Center land use for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan concept to maximize transit opportunities presented by the for which an EIR was certified." Accordingly, the planning adjacent Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commission concluded that "No further Station and will contribute to an accessible and pedestrian- review is required." Appellants " appealed the decision of the friendly environment in proximity to the BART Station. The planning commission to the city council.
Stage 2 Development Plan for Avalon Transit Center, Site C has been designed to be consistent with the Stage 1 standards 5 Appellants are Concerned Dublin Citizens (an
as proposed to be amended. The proposed Site Development unincorporated group of concerned citizens), Plan is reflective of the Stage 2 standards in terms of lot Robert Klein (a member of the group), and
area, lot dimensions, lot coverage, type and number of units, Carpenters Local Union No. 713. location and number of parking spaces, setbacks, architecture, and affordable housing." On May 17, 2011, the city council affirmed the planning commission's approval of the site development review permit With respect to the site design review, the planning and map and, on June 7, 2011, approved the stage 1 commission report analyzes the site plan, architectural development plan amendment, the stage 2 development plan design, building elevations, floor/unit plans, landscape plan, and the development agreement. The city council found that access and circulation, parking, streetscape improvements each of these is "exempt from CEQA under Government and ancillary retail/commercial space. As to the retail space, Code section 65457... as a residential project that is consistent the report states "The stage 1 development plan for the Dublin with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified." transit center notes that 'ancillary ground floor retail and service uses are strongly encouraged and 'Up to 70,000 On June 22, 2011, appellants filed a petition for a writ square feet of ground floor retail and service uses could be of mandate challenging the exemption from environmental incorporated into the residential ... fronting on Iron Horse review. After a hearing, the trial court found that substantial Parkway as long as the overall densities are not exceeded. evidence supports the city's finding that the elements of the The stage 1 [development plan] allows a maximum of 25,000 section 65457 exemption are satisfied and, on April 30, 2012, WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 issued a final statement of decision and entered judgment in fn. 3, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.) The question on appeal "is whether favor of the city, denying all relief. Appellants filed a timely **690 the agency abused its discretion. 'Abuse of discretion notice of appeal. is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.' " (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, 62 Cal.Rptr:2d
DISCUSSION
612.)
1. Standard of Review
"It is state policy in California thatlere, the city concluded that the project is exempt because *the long-term protection of the environment... shall be the it satisfies each of the elements of the statutory exception guiding criterion in public decisions.' [Citations.] In order provided by section 65457. Under section 65457, subdivision to implement this policy, CEQA and the guidelines issued (a), "Any residential development project, including any by the State Resources Agency [citation] have established subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon environmental impact report has been certified after January Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 112, 62 Cal.Rptr:2d 612.) The first step "is jurisdictional, (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources activity." (Ibid.) As part of the preliminary review, the Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision public agency must determine the application of any statutory does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental exemptions that would exempt the proposed project from impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in further review under CEQA. If, as a result of preliminary accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing review, "the agency finds the project is exempt from *1310 with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code."7 CEOA under any of the stated exemptions, no further Thus, to qualify for the section 65457 exemption, the environmental review is necessary. The agency may prepare project must be for residential development, it *1311 must and file a notice of exemption, citing the relevant section of implement and be consistent with a specific plan for which the Guidelines and including a brief statement of reasons to an environmental impact report previously has been certified, support the finding.' (Id. at p. 113, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) 6 and the qualification contained in the final sentence must not apply, i.e., either a supplemental EIR must not be required by Public Resources Code section 21166 or such a supplemental 6 The overview in Davidon Homes continues:
EIR must already have been prepared and certified.
"If, however, the project does not fall within
any exemption, the agency must proceed with
the second tier and conduct an initial study. Section 21166 provides: "When an environmental [Citation.] If the initial study reveals that the project impact report has been prepared for a project will not have a significant environmental effect, pursuant to this division, no subsequent or the agency must prepare a negative declaration, supplemental environmental impact report shall be briefly describing the reasons supporting that required by the lead agency or by any responsible determination. [Citation.] Otherwise, the third step agency, unless one or more of the following events in the process is to prepare a full [EIR] on the occurs: [9] (a) Substantial changes are proposed in proposed project." (Davidon Homes v. City of the project which will require major revisions of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, 62 the environmental impact report. [9] (b) Substantial Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which
15] In considering a petition for a writ of mandate in a CEQA will require major revisions in the environmental case, "ToJur task on appeal is "the same as the trial court's. impact report. [9] (c) New information, which was [Citation.] Thus, we conduct our review independent of the not known and could not have been known at the trial court's findings." (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602, WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 time the environmental impact report was certified significant environmental effects .., the fair argument as complete, becomes available." standard should govern review of an agency determination [6] [7| [8] In reviewing the city's decision, we al l oviewing the cies a it we ply the salon compio pie." a de novo standard of review to questions of statutory
interpretation. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for "The 'fair argument' test is derived from section Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School 21151, which requires an EIR on any project which Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d "may have a significant effect on the environment.' 128 ["The scope of an exemption may be analyzed as That section mandates preparation of an EIR a question of statutory interpretation and thus subject to in the first instance whenever it can be fairly independent review"].) "In determining whether an agency's argued on the basis of substantial evidence that findings concerning the use of a statutory exemption from the project may have significant environmental CEQA may be upheld, we review the administrative record impact.? [Citation.] If there is substantial evidence to see that substantial evidence supports each element of of such impact, contrary evidence is not adequate to the exemption. [Citations.] "There must be "substantial support a decision to dispense with an EIR." (Sierra evidence that the [activity is] within the exempt category Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th of projects." [Citation.] That evidence may be found in 1307, 1316, 8 Cal.Rptr:2d 473.) the information submitted in connection with the project, [10] We need not decide whether there is merit to this
including at any hearings that the agency chooses to hold. suggestion because the section 65457 exemption does not [Citation.J' [Citation.] ... [O]ur application of substantial require a determination of whether the proposed project evidence review in the context of a challenge to an agency's will have significant environmental effects. The section use of a statutory exemption means we determine whether 65457 exemption, like other statutory exemptions, reflects the administrative record contains relevant information that the Legislature's determination that the interest promoted a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support is "important enough to justify forgoing the benefits of the conclusion reached. All conflicts in the evidence are environmental review." (Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. resolved in support of the agency's action and we indulge all reasonable inferences to support the **691 agency's Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 382, 267 Cal.Rptr. 569, 787 P.2d 976, superseded by statute on another findings, if possible." (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara ground as stated in Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.04,
Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 973, 88 subd. (b); see also Communities for a Better Environment Cal.Rptr.3d 506.)
v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 128-129, 126 Cal.Rptr:2d 441 ["statutory exemptions have [9] Appellants acknowledge that generally the substantial an absolute quality not shared by categorical exemptions:
evidence rule applies to a local agency's determination that a project that falls within a statutory exemption is not a project is statutorily exempt from CEQA review. They
subject to CEQA even if it has the potential to significantly argue, however, that there is an exception to this general rule when application of the exemption depends on whether affect the environment"].) Under section 65457, a residential the project will have significant environmental impacts. In development project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR already has been certified ordinarily is such cases, appellants contend, the fair argument standard statutorily exempt from further CEQA review regardless of should apply. Appellants rely on footnote 24 in Gentry possible environmental impacts of the project. v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1407, 43 Cal.Rptr:2d 170, in which the court stated, "We have held The qualification contained in the final sentence of section that a substantial evidence standard of review applies to an 65457 delays application of the exemption "unless and until" agency's factual finding that a *1312 statutory exemption further environmental review of the specific plan has taken applies. [Citations.] Most statutory exemptions, however, place if required by Public Resources Code section 21166. operate regardless of whether the project will have effects If Public Resources Code section 21166 should apply, the on the environment. [Citations.] Thus, '[w]hen reviewing a exception does not require preparation of an EIR for the statutory exemption, the nature and extent of the project's proposed residential project; it prohibits application of the environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant.' [Citation.] exemption "unless and until a supplemental environmental Therefore, we have at least suggested that where a statutory impact **692 report for the specific plan is prepared and exemption does depend on whether the project will have certified." (§ 65457, italics added.) Thus, insofar as the WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 exemption under section 65457 turns on whether Public of residential to commercial use is not listed, but subsection Resources Code section 21166 requires updating of the H of the ordinance provides that "All other improvements program BIR, we apply the same substantial evidence to structures or a site, which are not otherwise mentioned in standard of review that governs review of a determination this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site Development Review that a supplemental EIR is not required under section 21166. Waiver or Site Development Review, as determined by the (See Abatti v. Imperial Irr: Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th Community Development Director." Appellants contend that 650,675, 140 Cal.Rptr:3d 647 ["In reviewing an agency's no site development review of such a conversion would be decision not to require additional environmental review required because of subsection E of section 8.104.040, which pursuant to section 21166, courts "are not reviewing the exempts "interior alterations" from site development review. record to determine whether it demonstrates a possibility However, this exemption applies only to "[interior alterations of environmental impact, but are viewing it in a light most that do not result in ... a change in the permitted use of the favorable to the [agency's] decision *1313 in order to structure or the modification of the existing configurations determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and uses of each room." The "permitted use" refers to the not to require additional review." ' "1) use approved in the site development review permit-in this case embodied in city council resolution No. 60-11—and
does not include other uses that may be permissible under
2. The project is a residential development. the applicable zoning ordinance but are not approved by the [11] Although there is no statutory definition of the term site development review permit. The conversion of residential "residential development" for purposes of this exemption, living space to commercial use would clearly fall outside the the trial court concluded, and the parties agree for purposes plain language of this exemption. of this appeal, that a residential development project under section 65457 is a project that contains 100% residential Contrary to counsel's suggestion at oral argument,
units or the usual incidents of residential units, such as yards, the site development review permit does not
parks or other uses authorized as permitted uses within a include or approve any commercial use as part
residential zoning district." Appellants acknowledge that the of the approved project. City council resolution
development as presently proposed includes only residential No. 60-11 approving the site development review
units, as so defined, but contend that the project is nonetheless incorporates the following recital as part of the
a mixed-use development because the specific plan, stage resolution: "WHEREAS, the Applicant applied for
I development plan, stage 2 development plan and the a PD-Stage 1 Development Plan amendment and development agreement authorize up to 25,000 square feet of Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance with
commercial usage in site C. Hence, appellants argue, because Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.32, and for
AvalonBay "retains the option to convert residential units to Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Tract
25.000 SF of retail space, [the project] is not limited to a Map 7929 and a Development Agreement for 505 residential development project and falls outside of Section 65457's exemption." The trial court rejected this argument Center: The application for Site Development
because "the city code and approval process for this project Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are
makes it clear that any future commercial use on the project collectively referred to herein as the 'Project.' " In site will require further discretionary review in the form of an finding that the project is exempt from CEQA, the
amendment to the site development review approved for the resolution repeats that "[t]he Project is a residential project." We agree. project because it consists of 505 residential units and ancillary parking and fitness center uses."
The only project that has been approved by the city for The city council resolution also incorporates the
site C is development of 505 residential units and ancillary findings and conditions of approval under planning features. **693 As the court noted, conversion of some of commission resolution No. 11-09, which defines the approved residential units to commercial *1314 use, if the project as "505 residential units on Site C of later proposed, would be subject to site development review Dublin Transit Center" and includes the finding under Dublin Municipal Code section 8.104.040. This section that "[t]he proposed site design for the development specifies the proper body to process site development review of the Dublin Station project, as conditioned, is of a lengthy list of common improvements. The conversion consistent with chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 Ordinance, complies with the policies of the EIR was certified in 2002. First, they contend that because General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the the specific plan is for mixed use, the project must also be Stage 1 Planned Development zoning as amended, a mixed-use plan. They argue, "[T]he transit center specific the Stage 2 Development Plan, and with all other plan, the EIR for which the city relies upon, is a mixed-use requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance project and not a residential development. Area C, the site of in that it will create housing opportunities; and AvalonBay, is permitted to include up to 25,000 SF of retail provide additional landscape amenities and areas to space. Overall, the transit center anticipates a maximum of congregate at the Transit Center:" 70,000 SF of ground-floor retail space, including specifically Contrary to appellants' additional argument, the fact that along Iron Horse Parkway on the eastern side of area C. the property is zoned for mixed uses does not convert the The inclusion of ground-floor retail is integral to the transit otherwise purely residential project into a mixed-use project. center's goal of creating a human-scale street width and Wesley Investment Co. v. County of Alameda (1984) 151 interesting pedestrian environment. Because AvalonBay must Cal.App.3d 672, 198 Cal.Rptr. 872 is instructive in this be consistent with that specific plan, it is a mixed-use project, regard. In that case, the plaintiff was denied a permit to not a residential project. [Citation.] If the city in fact deleted establish a retail store even though that use was permitted the retail uses from area C and AvalonBay-35 percent of under the applicable zoning ordinance. The denial was based the transit center's retail uses—then the project would not be on a site development review ordinance that called for consistent with the mixed-use project specified in the specific an exercise of discretion to promote orderly, attractive, plan. The city cannot have it both wayseither AvalonBay and harmonious development... by preventing establishment is consistent with the specific plan and, hence, a mixed-use of uses ... which are not properly related to their sites, project, or it is inconsistent with the specific plan because it surroundings ... or their environmental setting.' " (Id. at p. has deleted the retail uses from area C (in which case section 676, 198 Cal.Rptr. 872.) The court held that compliance with 65457(a) would also not be available)." We disagree. the zoning laws did not guarantee entitlement to a permit. "The [zoning] ordinances do not provide for an unbridled While the transit center is designed to combine residential and right to erect a retail store in a C-1 zone. Rather, the listing of commercial use in a sustainable, transit friendly environment, permitted uses in Ordinance Code section 8-48.1 is qualified commercial development in site C is not required by by the provision in section 8-48.4 subjecting certain projects the specific plan. The transit center retains its mixed- to site development review.... The fact that the site in question use character whether or not each of the several sites is in a zone where a retail store may be lawfully maintained within the center includes mixed usage. Moreover, as noted does not diminish the county's power to determine that a by the city, the specific plan states only that retail uses particular development is not suitable for that location." (Id. are "encouraged"-not required. The planned development at p. 678, 198 Cal.Rptr: 872) Commercial use within the zoning, which applies to the project site, similarly states only transit center is no different. AvalonBay is not automatically that ancillary retail uses are "encouraged." Thus, the absence entitled to develop commercial property simply because such of retail space does not render the project inconsistent with use would comply with zoning requirements. Rather, the the specific plan. specific plan anticipates that before any use of the property is approved, there will be compliance with the site development [13] Next, appellants argue that "[b]ecause the city elected review process, *1315 which includes compliance with to prepare a program level EIR in 2002, it cannot now applicable environmental review. Hence, approval of the change and exempt itself from the tiered EIRs that must project as presently proposed does not constitute approval necessarily follow." Appellants argument finds no support of commercial usage within site C. Therefore, the project under CEQA or the EIR that was certified in 2002. is properly considered residential development within the Guideline 15168 explains that "[a] program EIR is an EIR meaning of section 65457. which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: [9l (I) Geographically, [9] (2) As logical parts in the chain of
3. **694 The project is consistent with the transit *1316 contemplated actions, [9] (3) In connection with center specific plan. issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria [12] Appellants contend that in two respects the project is to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or [9] (4) As inconsistent with the transit center specific plan for which the individual activities carried out under the same authorizing WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar cumulative impacts, and [9l (5) Allow reduction in environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar paperwork." ways." (Guideline 15168, subd. (a).) '° Subdivision (c) of Likewise, the terms of the EIR do not prescribe the necessary Guideline 15168 **695 addresses the use of a program scope of environmental review for subsequent projects within EIR in evaluating later activities. The subdivision states that the transit center. As noted above, the EIR acknowledges that "[s]ubsequent activities in the program must be examined "[i]mplementation of the transit center will require a number in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an of follow-on actions" and that "it is anticipated that additional additional environmental document must be prepared. 11] (1) environmental review would occur at each of these stages of If a later activity would have effects that were not examined *1317 the project." ' The EIR does not, however, require in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be a specific level of environmental review. As the trial court prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. noted, "The city's consideration of whether the Govt.Code [9] (2) If the agency finds that ... no new effects could 65457 exemption applies is itself an environmental review, so occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the the city has been consistent with the letter of the law. **696 agency can approve the activity as being within the scope By announcing that the city intended to rely on the Govt Code of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new 65457 exemption and permitting public comment on the use environmental document would be required." (Italics added.) of that exemption, the city has been consistent with the spirit Subdivision (c)(5) advises, "A program EIR will be most of the law." helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as 11 possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, Appellants cite two additional passages in the EIR dealing with subsequent environmental review. In
many subsequent activities could be found to be within the one passage, the EIR reads, "The entitlements
scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required." (Italics currently sought are intended to provide a general framework for the comprehensive development
added.) Contrary to appellants' argument, nothing in section of the area as a transit village. Precise site
15168 or any other provision mandates a particular level of development plans have not yet been prepared
environmental review in evaluating later projects within the scope of a certified program EIR. While in some cases it will for individual properties, but will be included in subsequent submittals to the City of Dublin.
be necessary to prepare a negative declaration and in others Subsequent submittals will deal with such issues
to prepare a full environmental impact report, in others, the analysis will be completed by determining that the project is as project-specific land uses, site layouts, parking, building architecture, landscaping and similar
exempt from further CEQA analysis. This is the first of the items. Future environmental reviews will be
"three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon completed on specific development applications to ensure compliance with this Program EIR
Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 112-113, 62 Cal.Rptr:2d and CEQA." In a second passage, the EIR
612.)
reads, "Although not specifically addressed in this
Program EIR, the following actions are foreseen as
10 Subdivision (b) of this guideline lists the
future actions to be considered as part of the overall
advantages of a program EIR, including that a Dublin Transit Center project subject to subsequent program EIR can "(1) Provide an occasion for applications and environmental reviews: Stage 2 a more exhaustive consideration of effects and Planned Development rezoning, Site Development alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on Review applications, consideration of grading and an individual action, [9 (2) Ensure consideration building permits, utility hook-ups by the Dublin of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), granting a case-by-case analysis, 191] (3) Avoid duplicative of encroachment permits by the City of Dublin, reconsideration of basic policy considerations, [ and filing of Notices of Intent with the State (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad Water Resources Control Board." Neither of these policy alternatives and programwide mitigation statements specifies the necessary level of review measures at an early time when the agency has or precludes application of a statutory exemption. greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or
WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 units is not." The EIR analyzes environmental impacts based
4. The qualification to the section 65457 exemption does on the maximum residential units in the transit center. Shifting not apply.
100 units to a different location within the transit center is not [14] As noted above, the section 65457 exemption does not a significant change. Site C to which the units were reassigned apply if, subsequent to certification of the program EIR, is adjacent to site A, in which the number of residential units event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources was reduced. Importantly, the total number of residential units Code" has occurred "unless and until a supplemental
was not increased. The city thus was entitled to determine that environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared this change does not require preparation of a supplemental and certified." Public Resources Code section 21166 specifies environmental impact report for the specific plan.
three events that trigger the need for preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report. These events are:
[15] Appellant also argues that supplemental environmental "(a) Substantial changes ... in the project which will require review is necessary under section 21166, subdivision
major revisions of the environmental impact report. [1] (b) (c) because significant and new information regarding
Substantial changes ... with respect to the circumstances under greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions **697 has come to which the project is being undertaken which will require light since the EIR was certified in 2002. Although the major revisions in the environmental impact report. [and] EIR does not analyze environmental impacts from GHGs, [1l (c) New information, which was not known and could
appellants do not question the sufficiency of the analysis not have been known at the time the environmental impact of air quality impacts in the EIR and they concede that report was certified as complete, becomes available." (Public the city "applied the then-available BAAQMD [Bay Area
Resources Code, § 21166; see also Guidelines, § 15162.) Air Quality Management District] thresholds for ROGs Thus, the qualification to the section 65457 exemption thus [reactive organic gases] and NOx [nitrous oxide] in the 2002 turns on whether, subsequent to the certification of the EIR, EIR for the overall transit center and determin[ed] that it circumstances have changed to the extent that reliance on the would have significant and unavoidable impacts from its EIR is unwarranted. (See Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) releases of those pollutants." Appellants assert that in 2010, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073, 230 Cal.Rptr. 413 ["section
BAAQMD adopted new thresholds for establishing *1319
21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has significant environmental impacts from GHG emissions and already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency they contend that the new thresholds require additional of the original EIR has long since expired [citation], and environmental analysis.
the question is *1318 whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the The premise for this argument is highly questionable.
process"].)
In March 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court
found that BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA
In this case, the city determined that there are no
in adopting the new thresholds and set them aside
circumstances warranting additional environmental review pending further environmental review. (CBIA v. BAAQMD
of the transit center project. Appellants challenge this (Super: Ct. Alameda County, 2012, No. RG10-
determination in two respects. First, appellants argue that the 548693).) Pending appeal, BAAQMD "is no longer
increase in residential units in site C constitutes a significant recommending that the Thresholds be used as a generally change to the specific plan that requires further environmental applicable measure of a project's significant air quality review. The city contends the reallocation of 100 units from impacts." (<http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-
site A to site C cannot be considered a significant change and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-
to specific plan. We cannot disagree. As the city points out, Guidelines.aspx.> [as of March 7, 2013].) Moreover, the reallocation of residential units within the transit center is suspended guidelines, even if effective, expressly have no expressly authorized by the plan. As reflected in the table on retroactive application: "It is the Air District's policy that the proposed land uses for the Dublin Transit Center contained in adopted thresholds apply to projects for which a notice of the specific plan, sites A, B, and C are all zoned high density preparation is published, or environmental analysis begins, residential. The specific plan allocates 405 residential units on or after the applicable effective date. The adopted CEQA to site C, 565 units to site B, and 530 units to site A for a thresholds ... are effective June 2, 2010."
maximum of 1,500 residential units. However, note 4 to the table states, "Maximum square footage and maximum units per site can be exceeded, as long as the total square footage or WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301(2013) 154 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 The trial court rejected appellants' argument on the ground tortoise, was not "significant new information" for purposes that substantial evidence supports the city's finding that, of Public Resources Code section 21166. (Id. at pp. 1605- without regard to the effectiveness of the new thresholds, 1606, 45 Cal.Rptr:2d 822.) As the court stated, "[However they do not constitute "new information" requiring additional legally characterized, the habitat would be affected the same environmental review under Public Resources Code section as before. And the environmental review and mitigation 21166, subdivision (c). As the trial court found, "[the measures that had already been completed focused on the potential environmental impacts of [GHs] were known or real effects of the project not just on 'the tortoise,' but on its could have been known at the time the 2002 plan EIR was habitat (previously termed 'crucial'), which is exactly how certified." The court relied on a planning commission staff the project would impact on the species." (Id. at p. 1605, 45 report that states, "In 2002, information about the potential Cal.Rptr:2d 822.) Thus, the new regulation did not constitute impacts of GHGs was widely known. The United Nations new information requiring a supplemental environmental Framework Convention on Climate Change was established impact report. in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed It is true that the relevant impacts had been analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of in the initial environmental impact report in Fort Mojave this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in Indian Tribe and here the impact of GHG emissions was 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change not analyzed in the program EIR. Nonetheless, the impacts were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In of the project on air quality were considered in the EIR 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action and substantial evidence supports the city's finding that the Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to potential effects of GHGs were known and could have been provide information about potential environmental impacts. addressed in conjunction with the certification of the EIR in Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change 2002. Therefore, the city properly concluded that the issuance was known at the time of the certification of the EIR in of new threshold guidelines was not new information that November 2002." The court also relied on Citizens for requires the preparation of a supplemental environmental Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of report under Public Resources Code section 21166.
San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532, 129 Cal.Rptr:3d 512, in which the court upheld a local agency's determination
5. Conclusion
that "new information" about GHG emissions *1320 did
not require supplemental environmental review under Public As did the trial court, we conclude that substantial Resources Code section 21166. Among the reasons for this evidence supports the city's determination that the proposed conclusion was that "information on the effect of greenhouse development of site C of the transit center is a residential development exempt from further environmental review
gas emissions on climate was known long before the City approved the 1994 FEIR." (Id. at p. 531, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 512.) under section 65457. The petition for a writ of mandate therefore was properly denied.
[16] Appellants argue that Citizens for Responsible
Equitable Environmental Development is distinguishable
because the **698 petitioners there "limit[ed] themselves to *1321 Disposition generalized assertions that global warming was a problem" while here the appellants rely on the issuance of new The judgment is affirmed. Respondents and real party in threshold guidelines which could not have been known in interest shall recover their costs on appeal. 2002. However; the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the underlying information was otherwise We concur:
known or should have been known at the time the EIR
was certified. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California McGuiness, P.J.
Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, cited by the trial court, illústrates this Jenkins, J. point. In that case, the court held that a new regulation designating critical habitat for an endangered species, the WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2013) 154 Cal. Rptr.3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098 All Citations
214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 154 Cal.Rptr:3d 682, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3428, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4098
End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Governmeni Works. 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.2 TYPE OF EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed project as a whole.
It is noted that the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e. the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. Topics such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality are analyzed at a project-level analysis in this EIR given that these are physical environmental resources, and the area of impact is fully defined. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project-level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis for these topics is driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is detailed in the land use design and development projections. In some cases, there may be specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time.
Additionally, the design of the school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time, so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level.
This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach, with some project-level analysis, is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the development plan; however, as discussed above, not all design aspects of the future development phases are known at this stage in the planning process. Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically,
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), "Ia] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as
1.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan Exhibite
2000917
INTRODUCTION 1.0
possible." Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).
Section 15168(c), entitled "Use with Later Activities," provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.
(4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.
Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City's expectation, at least at present, is that the checklist will conclude that most, or all, components of the Specific Plan can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there is a high level of resolution with regard to the project details that have been analysis in this program EIR. In some cases, however, a site-specific application (i.e. commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at this time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information Draft Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 1.0-3 AR000918
1.0 INTRODUCTION
from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b) (1)(C).)
Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. "''[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on 'the big picture, and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such... first tier decisions] and are...consistent with local agencies' governing general plans and zoning."" (Koster v. County of San Joaquin 1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has "adequately addressed" the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that "were not examined as significant effects" in the prior EIR or "[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means." In general, significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency determines that:
a) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or
b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.
Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been "adequately addressed" in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for these site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be "avoided or mitigated" by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.
In addition, because the EIR addresses the effects of rezoning the land within the proposed Specific Plan area, future environmental review can also be streamlined pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. These provisions, which are similar but not identical to the tiering provisions, generally limit the scope of necessary environmental review for site-specific approvals following the preparation of an EIR for a "zoning action." For such site-specific approvals, CEQA generally applies only to impacts that are "peculiar to the parcel or to the project" and have not been previously disclosed, except where "substantial new information" shows that previously identified impacts would be more significant than previously assumed. Notably, impacts
1.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan AR000919
INTRODUCTION 1.0
are considered not to be "peculiar to the parcel or to the project" if they can be substantially mitigated pursuant to previously adopted, uniformly applied development policies or standards. As noted above, the City anticipates that, in assessing the extent to which the Specific Plan EIR has previously addressed significant impacts that might occur with individual projects, the City may conclude that in some instances (e.g., with respect to agricultural resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and paleontological resources), no further analysis beyond that found in the program EIR will be necessary.
Finally, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457.
Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that "[a]ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA]." The statutes go on to say, moreover, that "if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [EIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [EIR] is certified, the exemption ... applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan." (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.)
When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the Central Area Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.
1.3 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
As required by CEQA, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Salinas is the "Lead Agency" for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.
The term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a "Trustee" agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 recognizes four particular trustee agencies: (a) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the State, to designated rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department; (b) the State Lands Commission with regard to State owned "sovereign" lands such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; (c) the State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System; and (d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.
The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:
Draft Environmental Impact Report - Salinas Central Area Specific Plan 1.0-5 AR000920
JOVIS
RUSSELL ROAD
NATIDAD RIGAD
CONSTTUTIONI BLVO
EAST BORONDA RD
INDEPENDENCE DC HELONGWAY DRIVE
RATVORDTIOM GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS LEGEND DESIGNATIONS LEGEND
CONSTITUTION BLVO
CANG DISTRICT TAND DETECT
СКРУ РОКАМ
TM 2021-001
PARKS Project Site
OPEN ЗРАСЕ
PEDESTRIAN PATHS
CONSTITU
ROUNDABOUT LOCATIONS SCALE IN FEET: 1"= 1,003*
SEE APPENDIX G FOR PLANNING SUBAREAS
FIGURE 1-7
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
UPON ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN
HL
KATIVEAD ROAD
CONSTITUTION BEID
I BORDADA RD
HEMINGNAY DILE
CENTRAL AREA ZONING
DISTRICT PLAN LEGEND DISTRICT LIN LEGEND MON BEVO
TM 2021-001
Project Site
PARES
1500
OPDISPACE
RESTRAN PATHO SCALE IN FEET: 1"= 1,000•
SEE APPENDIX G FOR PLANNING SUBAREAS
ROUNDABOUT LOCATIONS FIGURE 2-1
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
SL