Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, May 6, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Tuesday, May 6, 2025
4:00 PM
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas, CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org

SALINAS ROTUNDA
City Council
Mayor Dennis Donohue
Councilmembers:

Jose Luis Barajas, District 1 - Tony Barrera, District 2 Margaret D'Arrigo, District 3 - Gloria De La Rosa, District 4 Andrew Sandoval, District 5 - Aurelio Salazar, District 6 Rene Mendez, City Manager
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office: (831) 758-7381
Meeting Agenda - Final

May 6, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda - Final

ZOOM WEBINAR PARTICIPATION
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://cityofsalinas.zoom.us/j/84544425725
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 669 444 9171 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 689 278 1000 US +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 646 931 3860 US Webinar ID: 845 4442 5725
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

NEW EMPLOYEE WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

PROCLAMATIONS
Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, May 2025 Older American's Month, May 2025
National Poppy Day, May 2025
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 - LEVINE ACT
Government Code § 84308. Parties to any proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use pending before the City Council must disclose any campaign contributions over $500 (aggregated) within the preceding 12 months made by the party, their agent, and those required to be aggregated with their contributions under Government Code § 82015.5. The disclosure must include the amount contributed and the name(s) of the contributor(s).

CLOSED SESSION
Receive public communications from the audience on Closed session items.

The City Council will recess to closed session pursuant to:

ID#25-167
a. Real Property Negotiations - California Government Code section 54956.8, conference with Real Property Negotiators, Rene Mendez, City Manager; Lisa Murphy, Assistant City Manager; Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney; and Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director regarding 131 Sun Street (APN 003-051 -087-000) and 139 Sun Street (APN 003-051-086-000) in the city of Salinas,

Page 2 ends

May 6, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
County of Monterey (Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority).

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECONVENE IN THE ROTUNDA AT 5:00 P.M.

CONSIDERATION
ID#25-172 2025 Salinas Strategic Plan
Recommendation: Receive and approve the 2025 Salinas Strategic Plan.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES
If you wish to make a general public comment or comment on a specific agenda item, you are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting in person. Public comment may also be submitted via email at [email protected] and will be entered into the record. Public comments generally are limited to two minutes per speaker; the Mayor may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Receive public communications on items that are not on the agenda and that are in the City of Salinas’ subject matter jurisdiction. Comments on Consideration, Public Hearing items, and the Consent Agenda should be held until the items are reached.

CONSENT AGENDA
Matters listed under the Consent Agenda may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the Council requests a separate vote or discuss. Members of the public may comment on the Consent Agenda items collectively during their public comment.

ID#25-171
Minutes
Recommendation: Approve minutes of April 22, 2025.

ID#25-107 Amendment to City-wide Landscape Service for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreements with Smith & Enright Landscaping Recommendation: Approve a Resolution to extend the term of the Agreement for City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts with Smith & Enright Landscaping for two (2) years; increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2025-2026 by 2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $324,180; increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2026-2027 by 2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $331,452; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendments.

ID#25-124
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 Acceptance Recommendation: Approve a Resolution accepting the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II CIP 9720, for maintenance and responsibility.

ID#25-130
Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply and Award the TP1 and IWWTF Facilities Improvements Project, CIP 9317

Page 3 ends

May 6, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements Project (CIP 9317); adopting the CEQA addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS); and awarding a contract to Mountain Cascade Inc. to construct the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements (CIP 9317) in the amount of $7,050,000, plus a 5% contingency in the amount of $352,500, for a total not to exceed amount of $7,402,500.

ID#25-131
Professional Service Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services for Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Recommendation: Approve a Resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,979,618.22, from June 2, 2025 through June 30, 2029, subject to the availability of funds; and authorizing the use of Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project funds up to $1,979,618.22 for the PSA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Engineering Services for Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and accepting and authorizing the use of the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds totaling $1,556,000 as leveraging funds for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project.

ID#25-145
Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation.

ID#25-150
Administrative Correction to Resolution No. 23211
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing an administrative correction of the not to exceed additional funding allocation amount stated in Resolution No. 23211 (N.C.S.) approved on March 25, 2025, and authorizing the Mayor to execute, and staff to submit a corrected State Resolution No. 23211 for the HCD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program Continuum of Care (CoC) Allocation of behalf of the City Council.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ID#25-110
Conditional Use Permit 2024-058; Request to establish and operate a proposed off-sale alcohol related use (Type 20 ABC license) at an existing food and beverage sales use located at 695 East Alisal Street in the Commercial Retail - East Alisal Street/East Market Street Focused Growth Overlay (CR-FG-5) Zoning District
Recommendation:

Approve a Resolution finding the project exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, affirming the findings, and approving Conditional Use Permit 2024-058.

ID#25-120 Fiscal Year 2025-26 City-Wide Schedule of Fees and Service Charges Annual Update
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution authorizing adjustments and additions to the City-Wide Schedule of Fees and Service Charges effective July 1, 2025.

ID#25-036 City Development Impact Fees Annual Adjustment Recommendation: Approve a Resolution increasing the City Development Impact Fees by 1.6% effective July 5, 2025.

Page 4 ends

May 6, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda - Final

CONSIDERATION
ID#25-092 City Council Committee Review and Update
Recommendation: Review and consider updates to the City Council Committee/Regional Board list.

ID#25-169 Update on City Commissions, Committees, and Boards Recommendation: Consider adopting an Ordinance amending Article 1 of Chapter 3 of the Salinas Municipal Code with respect to the identification, composition, duties, and operations of the City's commissions, committees, and boards; and approve a Resolution establishing the meeting calendar for the Salinas Police Community Advisory Committee, the Measure E Oversight Committee, and the Measure G Oversight Committee and establishing the Uniform Bylaws for City Commissions, Committees, and Boards as the Bylaws for the Salinas Police Community Advisory Committee.

COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Receive communication from Councilmembers on reports, appointments and future agenda items. Councilmember comments are generally limited to three minutes.

ADJOURNMENT
_____________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

AGENDA MATERIAL / ADDENDUM
Any addendums will be posted within 72 hours of regular meetings or 24 hours of special meetings and in accordance with Californian Government Code Section 54954.2 and 54956. City Council agenda reports and other writings distributed to the legislative body may be viewed at the Salinas City Clerk’s Office, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, and are posted on the City’s website at www.cityofsalinas.org in accordance with California Government Code section 54597.5. The City Council may take action that is different than the proposed action reflected on the agenda.

Disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, may be requested by any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting. Language interpretation may be requested as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Requests should be referred to the City Clerk’s Office At 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, 758-7381, as soon as possible but by no later than 5 p.m. of the last business day prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired or TTY/TDD text telephone users may contact the city by dialing 711 for the California Relay Service (CRS) or by telephoning any other service providers’ CRS telephone number.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This agenda was posted on May 1, 2025 in the Salinas Rotunda and City's website.

Meetings are streamed live at https://salinas.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx, televised live on Comcast Channel 25 and on http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel at 4:00 p.m. on the date of the regularly scheduled meeting and will be broadcast throughout the day

Page 5 ends

May 6, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Wednesday following the meeting. For the most up-to-date Broadcast Schedule for The Salinas Channel on Comcast 25, please visit or subscribe to our Google Calendar located at http://tinyurl.com/SalinasChannel25. All past City Council meetings may also be viewed on the Salinas Channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/thesalinaschannel.

Page 6 ends

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-167, Version: 1
a. Real Property Negotiations - California Government Code section 54956.8, conference with Real Property Negotiators, Rene Mendez, City Manager; Lisa Murphy, Assistant City Manager; Christopher A.

Callihan, City Attorney; and Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director regarding 131 Sun Street (APN 003-051-087-000) and 139 Sun Street (APN 003-051-086-000) in the city of Salinas, County of Monterey (Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority).

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-172, Version: 1
2025 Salinas Strategic Plan
Receive and approve the 2025 Salinas Strategic Plan.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: MAY 6, 2025
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
FROM: RENE MENDEZ, CITY MANAGER
BY: PATRICIA M. BARAJAS, CITY CLERK
TITLE: 2025 SALINAS STRATEGIC PLAN

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Receive and accept the 2025 Salinas Strategic Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 22, 2025 , the City Council held a Strategic Planning Session at the United Way Community Impact Center from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The City Council engaged in a half-day workshop with a focus on developing new strategic goals and priorities for 2025. The City retained Reva Feldman, LLC facilitator Reva Feldman to assist the Council the development of the Strategic Plan. The Plan is intended to serve as a roadmap for C ouncil and staff for the next two years.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council identified the following Strategic Goals and key strategies . The Strategic Plan, included as an attachment, include a complete list of the strategies identified for each goal.

1. Economic Development
a. Continue implementation of the Alisal Vibrancy Plan
b. Support and engage both new and established businesses c. Explore and expand Economic Development opportunities

2. Housing
a. Effectively promote the health and safety of unsheltered residents through supportive services and housing
b. Encourage and incentivize senior housing development c. Facilitate housing development while minimizing impacts to neighborhoods

3. Infrastructure
a. Prioritize energy and efficiency and resiliency in city projects Page | 2
b. Improve sidewalks, streets and pothole maintenance
c. Invest in recreational and public facilities

4. City Services
a. Continue working on the Vision Salinas 2040 General Plan b. Provide responsive and high-quality customer service c. Enhance city communication efforts and engagement

5. Public Safety
a. Continue community policing strategies
b. Promote and increase local hire and staffing levels for both police and fire department
c. Evaluate and expand code enforcement efforts

6. Youth and Seniors
a. Partner with regional stakeholder to improve access to the arts b. Improve, expand and develop youth and senior facilities and engagement programs c. Consider joint use agreements with school districts for community use of recreation spaces

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project . The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

If future CEQA considerations are required for specific Strategies, staff will evaluate and bring forth for Council consideration.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This report establishes a new Strategic Plan document setting new goals and priorities.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 84308 APPLIES:

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Salinas Strategic Plan document focuses on all areas of city government and will require cross- departmental coordination as key strategies are implemented.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Financing for strategies on the Strategic Plan will be budgeted within each Department’s operation and capital improvement budgets. When individual projects bring an unforeseen, non -budgeted cost or a specific large cost into the picture, an action item will be presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Page | 3
ATTACHMENTS:

City of Salinas Strategic Plan
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-171, Version: 1
Minutes
Approve minutes of April 22, 2025.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-107, Version: 1
Amendment to City-wide Landscape Service for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreements with Smith & Enright Landscaping
Approve a Resolution to extend the term of the Agreement for City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts with Smith & Enright Landscaping for two (2) years; increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2025-2026 by 2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $324,180; increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2026-2027 by 2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $331,452; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendments.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: APRIL 22, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: VICTOR BAEZ, LANDSCAPE DISTRICTS/FORESTRY MGR.

TITLE: AMENDMENT TO CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE SERVICE FOR

GREENBELTS, MEDIANS & ROUNDABOUTS AGREEMENTS

WITH SMITH & ENRIGHT LANDSCAPING

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution related to the City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreements for Services with Smith & Enright Landscaping to:

1. Extend the terms of the Agreement for City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts for two (2) years;

2. Increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2025 -2026 by

2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $324,180;

3. Increase the annual amount of compensation for the Agreement in year 2026 -2027 by

2.25% to a not to exceed amount of $331,452; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute the amendments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On June 14, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 22387 (N.C.S.) and awarded a contract to Smith & Enright Landscaping for Landscaping services for the City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts. Within the terms of the agreements, Smith & Enright requested an extension of the current contract and revised the rate. The extension and revised rate are included in Amendment No.1. City staff also recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute all Landscape Maintenance Service Contract amendments.

BACKGROUND:

On April 26, 2022, Request for Proposals were received for the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Landscape Maintenance Services. On June 14, 2022, Council with Resolution No. 22387 awarded a contract to Smith & Enright Landscaping for the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Landscape Maintenance Services.

Page | 2
On March 11, 2025, Smith & Enright submitted a written request to exercise their option for an additional two (2) year term. The request included an increase of the ENR Cost Index of 4.5% for the two years term. To spread the cost according to the typical year inflation year 2025-2026 would increase 2.25% and the next year 2026 -2027 would increase 2.25%. City staff agrees with the request for extension and increase for the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement. The extended two (2) year term will end on June 14, 2027. The new monthly increase for 2025-2026 will be $27,015.00 (2.25%) for a not-to exceed $324,180.00 and the increase for year 2026 -2027 monthly increase of $27,621.00 (2.25%) for a not -to-exceed $331,452.00.

Also, staff is exploring the possibility of engaging/partnering with Rancho Cie lo to provide landscaping services. This would not only help provide valuable workforce development but provide a positive step forward for many of the youth going through that program. Your Council will be kept abreast as this develops further and any necessary actions will be brought forward for consideration and direction.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project . The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that th ere is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

Yes

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Landscape Maintenance Service Contract for the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts relates to the Council’s Strategic Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This work is an ongoing partnership between divisions within the Pub lic Works Department. The PW Admin. Division coordinates the procurement and contract execution phase, while the Maintenance Services Division oversees the day-to-day operations.

Page | 3

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Fund

Appropriation

Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The cost for the two (2) year extension for City-Wide Landscape Services for greenbelts, medians & roundabouts proposed under this contract will be subject to the appropriation of funds in future budget processes.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Amendment No. 1
Attachment A (request for extension and price increase – City Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts)
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY - WIDE

LANDSCAPE SERVICES FOR GREENBELTS, MEDIANS & ROUNDABOUTS

AGREEMENT WITH SMITH & ENRIGHT LANDSCAPING

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 22387 (N.C.S.) approved City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement with Smith & Enright Landscaping (“Smith & Enright”); and

WHEREAS, on March 11, 202 5, Smith & Enright exercised their right to request a n extension and rate increase to the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement

WHEREAS, the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement term will be extended to June 14, 2027, with an in creased not-to-exceed amount of $324,180.00 for FY 2025-2026 and not-to-exceed amount of $331,452.00 for FY 2026-2027; and

WHEREAS, City Council authorize s the City Manager to execute all Landscape Maintenance Service Contract Amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves an extension of the term of the Agreement for City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts for two (2) years to end on June 14, 2027; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the rate increase to the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement with an annual not -to-exceed amount of $324,180.00 for FY 2025 -2026 and not -to- exceed amount of $331,452.00 for FY 2026-2027; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute all Landscape Maintenance Service Contract amendments approved in this Resolution.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page | 1
APPROVED:

_______________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Page | 2

Page 1 of 2 ends

Version: January 2021

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts

AGREEMENT BETWEEN
SMITH & ENRIGHT LANDSCAPING, INC., AND CITY OF SALINAS

This Amendment No. 1 is for the two (2) year extension request for the City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Agreement. The agreement is entered into this 22 day of April 2025, by and between the City of Salinas (the “City”) and Smith & Enright Landscaping, Inc., (the “Contractor”). City and Contractor may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively the City and Contractor may be referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the City and Contractor first entered into an agreement for City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts effective June 14, 2022, pursuant to which Contractor agreed to act as and provide certain services to the City for compensation (the “Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 22387 the City Council awarded an agreement to Contractor for Three (3) years, with the option for an additional two (2) year term with an inflation rate increase per the ENR Cost Index; and

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025, Contractor submitted a written request (Attachment A) to exercise the option for an additional two (2) year term with the request of the ENR Cost Index of 4.5% or less and will reflect all bid items.

The new monthly increase for 2025-2026 will be $27,015.00 at (2.25%) for one a not-to exceed amount of $324,180.00 and the increase for year 2026 -2027 monthly increase of $27,621.00 (2.25%) for year t wo a not-to-exceed amount of $331,452.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the terms and conditions set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:

TERMS

1. The term of the Agreement is hereby extended for a two-year period commencing on June 14, 2025, and ending on June 14, 2027.

2. The new yearly rate for 2025-2026 will be for a not -to exceed amount of $324,180.00 and the new yearly rate for 2026-2027 will be for a not-to-exceed amount of $331,452.00. This will honor contractors request for ENR Cost Index of 4.5% for the two-year term with an overall contract not-to exceed amount of $655,632.

3. All other covenants, terms, and conditions set forth in the Agreement and not amended by this Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of the City and Contractor have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF SALINAS

___________________________________
Rene Mendez, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________________

Page 2 of 2 ends

Version: January 2021

□ Chris Callihan, City Attorney
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

Smith & Enright Landscaping, Inc.

____________________________________
Printed name: ________________________
Title: ________________________________

ATTACHMENT A

March 11, 2025

City of Salinas
Environmental & Maintenance Services
426 Work St
Salinas, CA 93901

ATTN: Victor Baez & Jenny Davila
RE: Contract with Smith & Enright for Greenbelts, Medians and Roundabouts

Dear Victor and Jenny,

As we near the end of our contract term coming up in June of 2025, I would like to formally request the renewal of our contract for an additional two-year term as outlined in the original agreement. If the option to extend the contract for an additional term is extended, we would like to request a cost-of-living increase of 4.5% for the two-year term. In order to spread the cost according to the typical year inflation – the first year would be an increase of 2.25% and the next year another 2.25%.

The new pricing would be:

25-26 Fiscal Year 26-27 Fiscal Year
Original Greenbelt & Medians: $22,292 $22,793
Downtown Parking: $4,468 $4,568
Permit Center: $255 $260

Please do let me know if you have any questions or concerns. We have appreciated caring for where we live and work.

Best Regards,

Selena Herrin

Selena Herrin
General Manager

Page | 1

RESOLUTION NO. 22387 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AWARDING A CONTRACT

FOR CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE SERVICES FOR GREENBELTS, MEDIANS &

ROUNDABOUTS

WHEREAS, representatives of the Public Works Department received and reviewed the bids for the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Request for Proposals submitted to PlanetBids on April 26, 2022; and

WHEREAS, for the City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts, the lowest bidder, Smith a nd Enright Landscaping Services, Inc. submitted a total annual bid of $244,704.00 and sufficient funds are available to award the contract . Contract total for three years is $734,112.00; and

WHEREAS, City staff thereupon reported the results of the propos als submitted to the City Council at its regular meeting on June 14, 2022, and the Council in open session at said meeting examined the report of staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code s ection 12-21, in reference to the City -Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts contract, that all of said proposals are rejected except the proposal of Smith and Enright Landscap ing Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Successf ul Bidder”), being the lowest and best bid, which is hereby accepted. The subject contract is hereby awarded to Successful Bidder for the sum of $244,704.00 per year (for a period of three years, with an option to extend two additional years), and more specifically detailed in the unit and extra work prices particularly set forth and contained in the proposal for City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts. Said sum shall be paid by the City of Salinas to said Successful Bidder in cash, lawful money of the United States of America, payable at the time and in the manner specified in the contract documents in the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts Request for Proposals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said contract documents are hereby referred to for all of the details and particulars thereof, and said contract is by reference incorporated in and hereby made a part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of Salinas is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Salinas to execute a contract consistent with the Proposal of the City-Wide Landscape Services for Greenbelts, Medians & Roundabouts ’ Successful Bidder for said work effective the date of this Resolution.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, González, McShane, Osornio, Rocha and Mayor Craig

DocuSign Envelope ID: 170D8677-EBFD-4D6B-94D0-EBA70B36BE3F Page | 2

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

APPROVED:

________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

DocuSign Envelope ID: 170D8677-EBFD-4D6B-94D0-EBA70B36BE3F

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-124, Version: 1
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 Acceptance Approve a Resolution accepting the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II CIP 9720, for maintenance and responsibility.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: APRIL 22, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BY: VICTOR SANCHEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT PHASE II, CIP NO. 9720

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution accept ing the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II CIP 9720, for maintenance and responsibility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 6, 2024, City Council awarded the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 to JJR Construction Inc. for a contracted amount of $1,688,963.51 and authorized additional work in the amount of $400,000.00. Construction began on April 15, 2024, with an allowance of 95 working days for project completion. JJR Construction has completed sidewalk repair for 24 street segments under this contra ct for a total amount, including eight contract change orders, of $2,448,517.73. Substantial completion was issued on September 27, 2024. Plant establishment period ended on March 5, 2025. Staff recommends the approval of a resolution to accept the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 for maintenance and responsibility.

BACKGROUND:

On August 5, 2021 the City Council adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for the City of Salinas. The plan identified ADA compliance deficiencies in facilities in the right of way including sidewalks, push buttons, bus stops and curb ramps. The Sidewalk Repair Program is a program that incorporates various divisions and programs to address ADA compliance in the right of way.

The Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720, continues the City’s ongoing efforts to repair and/or rehabilitate sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pedestrian curb ramps and driveways that are deteriorated or damaged, and to make the required improvements to meet current ADA requirements. Project construction plans and specifications were approved by the City Engineer on December 6, 2023.

On February 6, 2024, City Council awarded JJR Construction Inc. the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 for a contracted amount of $1,688,963.51 and authorized additional work in the amount of $ 400,000.00. (Resolution No. 22889) and allowing 95 working days for Page | 2
project completion. Construction commenced on April 15, 2024. A total of 24 street segments received sidewalk repairs or ADA improvements.

Table 1 identifies the street segments completed by JJR Construction through the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720.

Table 1. Sidewalk Repair Segments
Location Street Limits
1 1st Ave Between E Market Street & Garner Avenue
2 Ranchero Dr Between La Honda Court & Las Casitas Drive 3 Tapadero St Between Chaparral Street & E Laurel Drive 4 Pennsylvania Dr Between Dartmouth Way & McKinnon Street 5 Van Buren Ave Between Russell Road & San Juan Grade Road 6 Delancey Dr Between Harden Parkway & Broadway Drive
7 Eisenhower St Between Van Buren Avenue & Russell Road 8 E Romie Ln Between S Main Street & Abbott Street
9 Kimmel St Corner of Glenwood Court & Kimmel Street
10 Pescadero Dr
Intersection of Pescadero Drive & Arcadia Way
Corner of Pescadero Drive & Compton Way
Corner of Pescadero Drive & Emerald Way
Corner of Pescadero Drive & El Sur Avenue
11 Maryal Dr
Corner of E Laurel Drive & Maryal Drive
Corner of Maryal Drive & Reata St
Corner of Maryal Drive & Chaparral Street
Corner of Maryal Drive & Sequoia Street
12 Emerald Dr Corner of Emerald Drive & Emerald Way
13 Glendora Way
Corner of Glendora Way & Arcadia Way
Corner of Glendora Way & Redondo Way
14 Adams St
Corner of Adams Street & Tulane Street
Corner of Adams Street & Mohawk Avenue
Corner of Adams Street & Pueblo Drive
15 Crescent Way
Corner of Crescent Way & W Curtis Street
Corner of Crescent Way and Boeing Avenue
16 N First Street Corner of N First Street & Boeing Avenue 17 Cherokee Dr Corner of Cherokee Drive & Seminole Way
18 Eucalyptus Dr ADA Ramp at Eucalyptus Drive & Linden Street 19 Menlo Way
ADA Ramp at Menlo Way & Atherton Way
ADA Ramp at Menlo Way & Los Altos Way
20 Campus Ave
ADA Ramp at Campus Avenue & College Drive
ADA Ramp at Campus Avenue & Lemos Avenue
ADA Ramp at Campus Avenue & Fairfax Drive
21 Sierra Madre Dr
ADA Ramp at Sierra Madre Drive & San Felipe Street
ADA Ramp at Sierra Madre Drive & Ambrose Drive
ADA Ramp at Sierra Madre Drive & W Acacia Street
ADA Ramp at Sierra Madre Drive & Loma Vista Drive
22 Pueblo Dr ADA Ramp at Pueblo Drive & W Curtis Street Page | 3
Location Street Limits
ADA Ramp at Pueblo Drive & Mohawk Avenue
ADA Ramp at Pueblo Drive & N First Street
23 Parsons Ave ADA Ramp at Parsons Avenue & Pike Way
24 Somersworth Way Between Cabot Way & end
Table 2 summarizes the project’s measurable outputs. Staff notes that planting of trees is dependent on the residents’ willingness to water the street tree. Of the locations identified for new street tree locations, only a limited number of residents agreed to accepting a new street tree.

Table 2: Project Summary
Construction Activity Description Quantity Unit
Reconstruct Concrete Sidewalk 36,618 sf
Reconstruct Curb and Gutter 0.56 miles
Reconstruct Driveway Approach 4,406 sf
Grind Sidewalk Offsets 0.49 miles
Construct ADA Curb Ramps 66 each
Remove Street Trees 59 each
Plant Street Trees 6 each
A total of eight change orders totaling $ 759,554.22 were issued for a total construction cost, including contract change orders, of $2,448,517.73, as detailed on Table 3. A total of 70 additional working days were issued to complete the additional work requested. Contract change orders were approved in accordance with Department Policy 75-1, revised December 4, 2018.

Table 3: Contract Change Orders
Contract/
Change Order Description Working
Days
Change Order
Amount
Cumulative
Contract Total
Contract Base Bid 1-2 95 $1,688,963.51
CCO 1 Corner Addresses 20 $197,865.88 $1,886,829.39
CCO 2 HMA Increase 0 $10,500.00 $1,897,329.39
CCO 3 ADA Ramps 30 $372,246.60 $2,269,575.99
CCO 4 Grievance (Somersworth) 5 $31,658.44 $2,301,234.43 CCO 5 138 E Romie Lane 5 $23,432.60 $2,324,667.03
CCO 6 118 E Romie Lane 5 $39,619.07 $2,364,286.10
CCO 7 70 E Romie Lane 5 $36,691.37 $2,400,977.47
CCO 8 Balance Change Order 0 $47,540.26 $2,448,517.73
Total 165 $759,554.22 $2,448,517.73

The project was substantially completed on September 27, 2024. The plant establishment period ended on March 6, 2025.

Page | 4
The construction methods and materials met the Project Specifications as set forth by the contract documents and the project has been deemed complete.

On November 16, 2021, City Council appropriated American Rescue Plan Act Funds (Resolution No. 22250), allocating $6M for sidewalk repairs, majority to be spent in 93905 and 93906. ARPA funding was divided to be spent in two years on separate sidewalk repair projects. Additional funding for this project was allocated from CIP 9720 (General Fund, Measure G and Measure X).

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I) because the majority of the work will be maintenance of concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as all exceptions do not relate to the project scope of work for this project.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This item relates to the Council’s Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety by investing in the sidewalk repair program and allowing increased mobility for seniors, youth, and disabled individuals.

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONO 84308 APPLIES:

No.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The majority of the coordination is within the Public Works Department. The Divisions working together are the Engineering Division and Maintenance (Urban Forestry and Streets Divisions) for updates and coordination on the Sidewalk Repair request list, evaluation of tree roots, and tracking of the trees removed/replaced. Public Works coordinates contract execution with the Finance and Legal Departments.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The project was completed within the approved budget. Contract amounts were paid using ARPA funds for Base Bid No. 1 and CIP 9720 which included approximately a $1 million appropriation from the General Fund (including Measure G) for Base Bid No. 2. The total construction cost was $2,448,517.73.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Page | 5
Before and After Photos
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT PHASE II, CIP 9720

WHEREAS, on August 5, 2021, City Council adopted the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan which identified ADA compliance deficiencies in facilities in the right of way; and
WHEREAS, the Sidewalk Repair Program is a program that incorporates various divisions and programs to address ADA compliance in the right of way; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II , CIP 9720 continues the City’s ongoing efforts to repair and/or rehabilitate sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pedestrian curb ramps and driveways that are deteriorated or damaged and to make the require improvement to meet current ADA requirements; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, City Council awarded the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 to JJR Construction Inc. for a contract amount of $1,688,963.51 and authorized additional work in the amount of $400,000; and WHEREAS, a total of eight change orders totaling $759,554.22 were issued, with the final contract cost including Contract Change Orders, is $2,448,517.73; and

WHEREAS, a total of 24 street segments have been repaired and a total of 66 pedestrian curb ramps were installed; and

WHEREAS, the project has been deemed completed on March 6, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the project was completed within its allocated budget plus allowance and contingency; and

WHEREAS, the project was determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby accepts the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720, for maintenance and responsibility.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

2 ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

________________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Citywide Sidewalk Repair
Project Phase II, CIP 9720
May 2024-March 2025

Before After

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-130, Version: 1
Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply and Award the TP1 and IWWTF Facilities Improvements Project, CIP 9317
Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements Project (CIP 9317); adopting the CEQA addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS); and awarding a contract to Mountain Cascade Inc. to construct the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements (CIP 9317) in the amount of $7,050,000, plus a 5% contingency in the amount of $352,500, for a total not to exceed amount of $7,402,500.City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: APRIL 22, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
TITLE: SALINAS PROJECT TO ENHANCE REGIONAL STORMWATER
SUPPLY AND AWARD THE TREATMENT PLANT 1 AND

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CIP 9317

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution to:

1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Treatment Plant 1 and Industrial Wastewater Facilities Improvements Project (CIP 9317); and

2. Approve the CEQA addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply; and

3. Award a contract to Mountain Cascade Inc. to construct the Treatment Plant 1 and Industrial Wastewater Facilities Improvements (CIP 9317) in the amount of $7,050,000 , plus a 5% contingency in the amount of $352,500 , for a total not to exceed amount of $7,402,500.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On March 30, 2021, the City Council authorized entering into a funding agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS).

LSA, the City’s consultant on this project, has prepared a CEQA addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the SPERSS. The State Water Resources Control Board requires the City Council approve these documents in order for the project to proceed.

The project was bid on January 29, 2025 , and opened on February 27, 2025 , with one bidde r responding to the bid. Negotiations took place with the lone bidder to ensure a contract could be awarded within the available grant funds.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns and operates an Industrial Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System (IWCCS) that processes industrial wastewater from agricultural-related businesses operating in the City. The main trunk line for the IWCCS, which collects discharges from these industries , passes through the Treatment Plant No 1 (TP1) site before disposal at the Indust rial Wastewater Page | 2
Treatment Facility (IWTF). Also, all flows for the City Sanitary Sewer System are conveyed to the TP1 site where the Monterey One Water (M1W) Salinas Area Pump Station is located.

Similarly, a portion of the City’s Storm Water Collection Sy stem which drains into the Salinas River Outfall, also traverses the TP1 site.

The City and M1W recognized the opportunities presented by the proximity of these independent infrastructure systems and have collaborated to install permanent facilities to di vert industrial wastewater to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant via the Salinas Area Pump Station. In 2015, M1W in coordination with the City, received $10 million under Round 1 of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Proposition 1 Storm Wa ter Grant Program (SWGP) to enable diversion, storage, and reuse of storm water and dry weather urban flows by utilizing infrastructure at the TP1 and IWTF locations. Implementation work for the Round 1 Grant work was completed in December 2020 and a final report has been submitted.

In 2020, the City, with assistance from M1W staff, applied for an additional storm water implementation grant through Round 2 of the same program for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS). The City was notified in February 2021 that it will receive a second Proposition 1 Grant of $6.3M to further enhance the City’s stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance infrastructure at the same TP1 and IWTF sites. City staff in collaboration with M1W, requested that the State reassess the award amount based on changes to the local cost share proposal in the grant application. The State later agreed to increase the grant award amount from $6,263,327 to $8,799,154 based on the availability of qualifying local cost match funds spent by M1W on the construction of the Pure Water Monterey Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF). As requested by the State Board, City and M1W staff provided information to demonstrate that storm water will be used to meet influent n eeds of the AWPF. The State again increased the funding for the project by $660,381 for a total of $9,459,535 at the request of City Staff to cover the increase cost that the City was seeing during the bidding process.

Components of the grant include:
 Stormwater Pump Station at TP-1
 Pipelines A and B (required to connect)
 Rehabilitation of 33-Inch IWW Pipeline
 Electrical/Instrumentation Work at TP-1
 Structural/Electrical/Instrumentation work at IWTF

The grant originally included a new influent pump station at the IWTF and the use of the old influent pump station to transfer stormwater to pond 1 at the IWTF. The bids for that project came in too high and the bids were rejected.

A second bid for TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements was issued on January 29, 2025, with a reduced scope to fit within the available funding. Bids were opened on February 27, 2025 , with one bidder responding. The bid was again higher than the available funds, but since it was a competitive bid with only one responder, the City was able to negotiate with the bidder to come up with a project that would fit within the available funds.

Page | 3

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

An Addendum was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS) Project (SPERSS Project) and the Salinas Storm Water Management Project (SSWMP), which is part of the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR Proj ect) evaluated in the following documents, collectively referred to as the “prior CEQA documents”:

• Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2015 EIR)1
• Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station (Addendum No. 1)2
• Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline (Addendum No. 2)3
• Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications (Addendum No. 3)4
• Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Public Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2021 SEIR)5 • Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes (Addendum to the 2021 SEIR)6

October.
2 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2016. Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station. June 14. 3 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2017. Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/ Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline. February 13. 4 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2017. Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications. October 24.
5 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc. 2020. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (SCH# 2013051094). April. 6 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc. 2021. Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013051094) for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes. November.

Page | 4
Pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an EIR has been certified, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances or new information to determine whether any of the circumstanc es under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 require additional environmental review. City staff concluded that the prior CEQA documents fully analyzed and mitigated, where feasible, all potentially significant environmen tal impacts, if any, that would result from the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration was required. On that basis, and as the City is a responsible agency, City staff evaluated the SPERSS and SSWMP Pr ojects, and all aspects of the changes, in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and prepared an Addendum for the changes, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

• A new trash capture facility;
• A diversion structure;
• Rehabilitation of an existing 33 -inch-diameter pipeline to convey stormwater from the diversion structure to the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF); • Construction of a new pump station and upgrades to the existing pump station at the IWTF. • A wetland rehabilitation pilot study.

Elements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, including the proposed diversion facility and pump station at the IWTF, were described and evaluated as part of the prior CEQA documents.

Other elements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Project are new (e.g., trash capture device) or slightly different from the project elements described in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared to evaluate whether implementation of the PWM/GWR Project, as modified to include the new and modified elements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Project, would result in new or substantially more severe significant effects or re quire new mitigation measures not identified in the prior CEQA documents.

Based on the analysis provided in the Addendum, City staff concluded that the prior CEQA documents may be used to fulfill the environmental review requirements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Project. The Addendum is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 because the City is a responsible agency and no circumstances exist calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. The proposed Addendum concluded that there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects are undertaken that would require major revisions to the prior CEQA documents. There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known or could not have been known at the time the prior CEQA documents were certified that shows the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have significant effects not discussed previously; a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant impact; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially Page | 5
reduce one or more significant effects; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior CEQA document which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. The SPERSS and SSWMP Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in th e prior CEQA documents and would not meet any other standards requiring further environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared based upon the findings of the Addendum. The MMRP lists the mitigation measures from the prior CEQA documents that are applicable to the proposed project and provides mitigation monitoring requirements only for those measures that still apply.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

Yes

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This project relates to the Council’s Goals of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Public Safety by maintaining the City’s existing roadways

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Public Works staff and Finance staff have worked together on the funding of the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements Project No. 9317.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund with this project.

PROJECT COSTS
Construction Cost $7,050,000
Contingency (5%) $352,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $7,402,500
A V AILABLE FUNDS $7,785,000

Fund

Appropriation

Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)
5201 9317 Salinas Project –
Enhance
Stormwater
$6,522,433 $6,522,433 N/A N/A
6200 9317 Salinas Project –
Enhance
Stormwater
$1,664,599 $1,262,567 N/A N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

Page | 6
Resolution
CEQA Addendum
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Mountain Cascade Proposal
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CEQA ADDENDUM AND AWARDING THE SALINAS PROJECT TO ENHANCE REGIONAL STORMWATER SUPPLY CIP 9317

WHEREAS, On March 30, 2021 , the City Council authorize d entering into a funding agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board for the Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS); and
WHEREAS, in October 2024, LSA prepared a CEQA addendum for SPERSS; and WHEREAS, the SPERRS and SWSMP Projects have been examined and their effe cts independently determined to have been adequately analyzed in the CEQA Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2015 EIR) as certified by the Monterey One Water (M1W) Board of Directors (M1W Board) on October 8, 2015 and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Public Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2021 SEIR) as certified by the M1W Board on April 26, 2021, inclusive of the Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station (Addendum No. 1), Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline (Addendum No. 2), Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications (Addendum No. 3), and Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Mon terey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes (Addendum to the 2021 SEIR), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the CEQA addendu m included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for SPERSS; and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2025, the City Engineer approved the project specifications and authorized the call for bids for the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements project; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2025, bids were publicly opened and examined for TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements, CIP 9317, in accordance with the project specifications; and WHEREAS, only one bid was received, which allowed a negotiated scope and fee for the project; and
WHEREAS, the new scope and fee includes portions of the project that have been approved by the State Water Resources Control Board at a cost of $7,050,000; and WHEREAS, City staff thereupon reported the bid results to the City Council at its regular meeting on April 22, 2025 , and the Council in open session at said meeting examined the staff report; and
2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code Section 12-21, in reference to TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements, CIP 9317, that the bid from Mountain Cascade Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “Successful Bidder”), being the best bid which is hereby accepted. The subject contract is hereby awarded to said Successful Bidder for the sum of $ 7,050,000, and more specifically at the prices particularly set forth and contained in the Proposal for the TP1 and IWTF Facilities Improvements Project No. 9 317, of said successful bidders previously filed in the office of the City Clerk; and BE IT F URTHER RESOLVED that said specification s for TP1 and I WTF Facilities Improvements Project No. 9317 are hereby approved for said work and said specifications are by reference incorporated in and hereby made a part of this resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Salinas to execute a contract consistent with the Proposal of said Successful Bidder for said work; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes $352,500 (5%) above the bid price for construction contingencies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to approve any and all change orders for completion of the project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby adopts the CEQA Addendum to the 2015 EIR including Addendum No. 1, Addendum No. 2, Addendum No. 3, the 2021 SEIR and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the Addendum to the 2021 SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

________________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
October 2024

C E Q A A D D E N D U M

SALINAS PROJECT TO ENHANCE REGIONAL STORMWATER SUPPLY (SPERSS)

PROJECT AND SALINAS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SSWMP)

SALINAS , MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

This page intentionally left blank
October 2024

C E Q A A D D E N D U M

SALINAS PROJECT TO ENHANCE REGIONAL STORMWATER SUPPLY (SPERSS)

PROJECT AND SALINAS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SSWMP)

SALINAS , MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

Carollo Engineers, Inc.
2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 932-1710

Prepared by:

LSA
285 South Street, Suite P
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 782-0745

Project No. 20242021.01

This page intentionally left blank

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 2015 EIR ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Addenda to the 2015 EIR............................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Addendum #1................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 Addendum #2................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 Addendum #3................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Supplemental 2021 EIR ................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Addendum to the 2021 SEIR ......................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Location............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Components ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Construction .................................................................................................................. 3-4

3.4 Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................................... 3-4

4.0 CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM ............................................. 4-1

5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................................... 5-1

5.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 5-3

5.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 5-5

5.5 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 5-10

5.6 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 5-11

5.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 5-13

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 5-16

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 5-16

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 5-18

5.11 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 5-24

5.12 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................... 5-26

5.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 5-27

5.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 5-28

5.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 5-29

5.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................... 5-31

5.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 5-31

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 5-33

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 5-34

5.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 5-34

6.0 DETERMINATION .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Substantial Changes to the Project ............................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Substantial Changes in Circumstances .......................................................................... 6-1

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) ii

6.3 New Information ........................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 7-1

APPENDIX
A: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
2015 EIR Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project
2021 SEIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Public Water Monterey Groundwater
Replenishment Project
Addendum No. 1 Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project
Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station Addendum No. 2 Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater
Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline
Addendum No. 3 Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications
Addendum to the 2021
SEIR
Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes
AFY acre-feet per year
BMPs Best Management Practices
CalAm California American Water
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCWG Central Coast Wetlands Group
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of Salinas
cfs cubic feet per second
CRLF California red-legged frog
EIR Environmental Impact Report

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) iv
GHG greenhouse gas
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IPS Influent Pump Station
IWTF Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility
IWW Industrial Wastewater Pipeline
LRA Local Responsibility Area
M1W Monterey One Water
M1W Board Monterey One Water Board of Directors
MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District
MCWD Marina Coast Water District
mgd millions gallon per day
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Salinas Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NCCP Natural Conservation Community Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers PWM/GWR Project Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Proposed Modifications Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project
RUWAP Regional Urban Water Augment Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SRSW Salinas River Subwatershed
SPERSS Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply SSWMP Salinas Storm Water Management Project
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TACs toxic air contaminants
TP-1 Salinas Treatment Plant No. 1

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) v
USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) vi
This page intentionally left blank

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Addendum prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS) Project (SPERSS Project) and the Salinas Storm Water Management Project (SSWMP), which is part of the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR Project) evaluated in the following documents:
• Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2015 EIR)1
• Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station (Addendum No. 1)2 • Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline (Addendum No. 2)3
• Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications (Addendum No. 3)4
• Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Public Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2021 SEIR)5

1 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc., Environmental Consultants Resource Planners. 2015. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013051094. October.
2 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2016. Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station . June 14. 3 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2017. Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Pipeline.

February 13.
4 Denise Duffy and Associates. 2017. Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications. October 24.
5 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc. 2020. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (SCH# 2013051094). April.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 1-2
• Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes (Addendum to the 2021 SEIR)6
Collectively, these environmental review documents are referred to as the “prior CEQA documents,” and are described further below.

The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would improve stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance infrastructure, which will enhance the effectiveness of the PWM/GWR Project while providing water quality benefits in the Salinas area. Improvements proposed as part of the SPERSS Project include the following:
• A new trash capture facility;
• A diversion structure;
• Rehabilitation of an existing 33-inch-diameter pipeline to convey stormwater from the diversion structure to the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF); • Construction of a new pump station and upgrades to the existing pump station at the IWTF. • A wetland rehabilitation pilot study.

As described further below, elements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, including the proposed diversion facility and pump station at the IWTF, were described and evaluated as part of the prior CEQA documents. Other elements of the SPERSS and SSWMP Project are new (e.g., trash capture device) or slightly different from the project elements described in the prior CEQA documents.

Details on the changes are included in the Project Description, below.

Per CEQA Section 15164, this Addendum evaluates whether implementation of the PWM/GWR Project, as modified, would result in new or substantially more severe significant effects or require new mitigation measures not identified in the prior CEQA documents. The City of Salinas (City) is both the project proponent and the CEQA Lead Agency for environmental review of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared based upon the findings of this Addendum. The MMRP, which is found in Appendix A, lists the mitigation measures from the prior CEQA documents that are applicable to the proposed project and provides mitigation monitoring requirements only for those measures that still apply. This MMRP table is intended to help the City of Salinas ensure compliance with the applicable mitigation measures during implementation of the proposed project.

6 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc. 2021. Addendum to the Expanded Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013051094) for the Deep Injection Well #6 Changes. November.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 2-1

2.0 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The following describes the prior CEQA documents upon which this Addendum relies.

2.1 2015 EIR
On October 8, 2015, per Board Resolution 2015-24, the Monterey One Water (M1W) Board of Directors (M1W Board) certified the 2015 EIR for the PWM/GWR Project and approved the project as modified by the Alternative Monterey Pipeline and the Regional Urban Water Augment Project (RUWAP) alignment for the Public Water Conveyance pipeline and booster pump station, which were presented and analyzed as alternatives in the 2015 EIR. The PWM/GWR Project would serve northern Monterey County. The purpose of the PWM/GWR Project is to provide: (1) purified recycled water for recharge of a groundwater basin that serves as drinking water supply; (2) purified recycled water for urban landscape irrigation within the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) service area; and (3) recycled water to augment the existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project’s agricultural irrigation supply. The PWM/GWR Project also includes a drought reserve component to support crop irrigation during dry years. M1W is currently implementing the PWM/GWR Project in partnership with both the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and MCWD.

The 2015 EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Impact NV-1 : Construction Noise (Alternatives Monterey Pipeline) • Impact NV-2: Construction Noise that Exceeds or Violates Local Standards (Tembladero Slough) As part of the project approvals, the M1W Board adopted a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, which outlines the mitigation measures applicable to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The M1W Board also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with its certification of the 2015 EIR.

The PWM/GWR Project, as evaluated in the 2015 EIR, included modifications to existing facilities and construction of new facilities to divert and convey new source waters through the existing municipal wastewater collection system, including:

1. Development of a new diversion structure at the Salinas Treatment Plant No. 1 (TP-1) site;

2. Demolition of the existing pump station at the IWTF;

3. Construction of a new 42-inch industrial wastewater pipeline to replace the existing 33-inch gravity main between the City’s TP-1 site and the IWTF; and

4. Installation of an 18-inch return pipeline within the abandoned 33-inch pipeline to return water from the IWTF to the diversion structure at the TP-1 site.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 2-2

2.2 ADDENDA TO THE 2015 EIR
Following certification of the 2015 EIR, three addenda were prepared and approved addressing changes to the PWM/GWR Project.

2.2.1 Addendum #1
Addendum No. 1 evaluated the environmental effects of constructing and operating an additional pump station, the Hilby Avenue Pump Station.

2.2.2 Addendum #2
Addendum No. 2 evaluated the environmental effects of realigning a 0.44-mile (2,350-linear-foot) segment of the Monterey Pipeline from its previous alignment within the existing right-of-way of Lily Street and Hoffman Avenue to a revised alignment along Irvine Avenue and Spencer Street. The revised alignment would begin at the intersection of Lily Street and Irving Avenue and end at the intersection of Spencer Street and Hoffman Avenue.

2.2.3 Addendum #3
Addendum No. 3 evaluated the environmental effects of increasing the peak capacity of the approved Advanced Water Treatment Facility from a maximum capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) to 5.0 mgd. During its approval of Addendum No. 3, the M1W Board also approved the joint use of a MCWD conveyance pipeline7 and storage tank (Blackhorse Reservoir) for delivering water to MCWD customers to use as urban landscape irrigation and to the groundwater replenishment injection wells in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

All three addenda determined that the proposed modifications to the PWM/GWR Project would not result in new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the 2015 EIR.

None of the changes evaluated in these three Addenda are part of the currently proposed SPERSS or SSWMP Projects.

2.3 SUPPLEMENTAL 2021 EIR
In 2021, M1W, as the CEQA Lead Agency, certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Public Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (2021 SEIR)8 and approved the Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (Proposed Modifications) on April 26, 2021, per Board Resolution 2021-05.

The primary objectives of the Proposed Modifications were to reduce discharges of secondary effluent to Monterey Bay and to provide approximately 2,250 acre-feet per year (AFY) of additional

7 The MCWD conveyance pipeline is a component of the RUWAP. The RUWAP is an urban recycled water project developed by MCWD.
8 Denise Duffy and Associates Inc . 2020. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (SCH# 2013051094). April.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 2-3
purified recycled water for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin and subsequent extraction to replace the same quantity of California American Water’s (CalAm) potable water supplies. In order to provide the additional purified recycled water for Seaside Basin injection and subsequent extraction for the CalAm service area, the Proposed Modifications to the PWM/GWR Project included improvements to M1W and CalAm facilities, as described below. • Modifications to M1W Facilities:
○ Improvements to the Advanced Water Purification Facility to increase peak capacity (adding equipment, pipelines, and storage within the approved and constructed facility buildings and paved areas);
○ Up to 2 miles of new water conveyance pipelines;
○ An additional deep injection well; and
○ Relocation of previously approved deep injection wells and monitoring well sites. • Modifications to CalAm Facilities:
○ Four new extraction wells and associated infrastructure (e.g., treatment facilities, electrical building, and pipelines); and
○ New potable and raw water pipelines.

The 2021 SEIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Impact NV-1: Construction Noise
• Secondary Effects of Growth Inducement
As part of the project approvals, the M1W Board adopted a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, which outlines the mitigation measures applicable to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The M1W Board also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with its certification of the 2021 SEIR. None of the changes evaluated in the 2021 SEIR are part of the currently proposed SPERSS or SSWMP Projects.

2.4 ADDENDUM TO THE 2021 SEIR
On April 26, 2021, M1W approved an Addendum to the 2021 SEIR. The 2021 Addendum analyzed the impacts associated with the following modifications to the PWM/GWR Project:
• The relocation of a previously approved shallow injection well; • A pipeline extension; and
• The relocation of a previously approved backflush basin.

The 2021 Addendum determined that the proposed modifications to the PWM/GWR Project would not result in new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts previously identified in

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 2-4
the 2021 SEIR. None of the changes evaluated in the 2021 Addendum are part of the currently proposed SPERSS or SSWMP Projects.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The following describes the proposed Salinas Project to Enhance Regional Stormwater Supply (SPERSS) Project and the Salinas Storm Water Management Project.

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The PWM/GWR Project facilities, including the original and modified project facilities, are located within unincorporated areas of the Salinas Valley in Monterey County and within the cities of Salinas, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Seaside. Specifically, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include improvements to the Salinas IWTF located along the west side of Davis Road, just north of where it crosses the Salinas River, TP-1, located at 156 Hitchcock Road in Salinas, and under Hitchcock Road just east of the Hitchcock Road/Davis Road intersection, as described below.

3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
• this document as the Hitchcock Road crossing;
Construction of The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects propose improvements to the TP-1 and the IWTF, as described below. The intent of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects are to improve stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance infrastructure to enhance the effectiveness of the overarching PWM/GWR Project, which would provide water quality benefits in the Salinas area. As outlined above, improvements proposed as part of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects include the following:
• A new trash capture facility;
• A diversion structure;
• Rehabilitation of an existing 33-inch-diameter pipeline to convey stormwater from the diversion structure to the Salinas IWTF;
• Installation of a siphon to restore continuity of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline that runs below Hitchcock Road just east of the Hitchcock Road/Davis Road intersection, which is being referred to throughout a new pump station and upgrades to the existing pump station at the IWTF; and • A wetland rehabilitation pilot study.

As described above, the new pump station at the IWTF was described and evaluated as part of the prior CEQA documents. New/modified components of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects that are evaluated in this Addendum include:
• Salinas River Subwatershed Trash Capture Device and Diversion Structure. A trash capture device and a diversion facility, including conveyance piping, metering, and associated infrastructure, would be installed at TP-1 to improve the capacity and quality of stormwater

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 3-2
transported to the IWTF. The Salinas River Subwatershed (SRSW) trash capture device would treat stormwater flows from the SRSW and support compliance with the Salinas Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollution Discharge System (NPDES) permit by improving water quality of flows discharged to the Salinas River and the IWTF. The proposed trash capture device would consist of a hydrodynamic separator, which allows the stormwater to flow through a swirl unit that removes sediments and other debris. The device would be connected to an existing 48-inch-diameter storm drain pipeline that flows into an existing 72-inch-diameter pipeline that flows into the Salinas Storm Water Pump Station, located at TP-1. As part of ongoing operation/ maintenance activities, vacuum trucks would be used periodically to pump out trash, sediment, oil/grease, and water that has collected at the bottom of the trash capture device.

Specific improvements would include:
○ A diversion structure constructed over the existing 48-inch-diameter storm drain pipeline.

This structure would have two sections separated by a weir wall and would be designed to bypass storm flows above the design storm. The upstream section would divert stormwater to the trash capture device. Return flow from the trash capture device would then enter the downstream section of the diversion structure to be conveyed to the existing stormwater pump station at the TP-1 site.
○ A trash capture device approximately 14 feet in diameter and 30 feet high installed approximately 30 feet below the existing grade. Inflow to this device would be from the upstream section of the diversion structure, and discharge would be diverted to the downstream section of the diversion structure and then to the stormwater pump station located at the TP-1 site.
• Rehabilitation of the 33-Inch-Diameter Pipeline. The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include construction of a Segregated Stormwater Diversion Facility near the existing TP-1. The Segregated Stormwater Diversion Facility would be separate from the diversion facility already installed at the TP-1 site. The implementation of the Segregated Stormwater Diversion facility would enable additional diversion of stormwater to the IWTF using an abandoned 33-inch pipeline. Currently, all diverted stormwater flows are combined with industrial wastewater, requiring large-capacity pumping at the Influent Pump Station (IPS) and treatment via the Aeration Basin at the IWTF. The Segregated Stormwater Diversion facility would allow the stormwater to be conveyed to the IWTF separately from industrial wastewater in order to improve the capacity of flows between the TP-1 and the IWTF, better match water quality to treatment methods, and achieve more sustainable and efficient operation of the IWTF. With implementation of the SPERSS Project, stormwater would also be conveyed directly to Percolation Pond 1 at the IWTF, resulting in energy savings and improved operational capacity and flexibility. With implementation of this improvement, the City of Salinas anticipates increasing stormwater capture to the IWTF by an average of 41 AFY and a peak of up to 652 AFY.

Rehabilitating the abandoned 33-inch-diameter pipeline to convey stormwater from the TP-1 to the IWTF represents a change from the PWM/GWR Project. The 33-inch diameter pipeline, which previously conveyed industrial wastewater, was replaced by the 42-inch diameter

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 3-3
pipeline that was identified and evaluated in the prior CEQA documents. As described in the prior CEQA documents, a new 18-inch return pipeline was to be inserted into the abandoned 33- inch-diameter pipeline; however, the 18-inch-diameter pipeline was never installed inside the 33-inch-diameter pipeline and is no longer being considered.

With implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, the 33-inch-diameter pipeline would be rehabilitated for stormwater only and would be used in addition to (not to replace) the existing 42-inch-diameter Industrial Wastewater Pipeline (IWW) to convey stormwater from the TP-1 site to the IWTF.

Rehabilitation of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline would include reconstructing it in areas where it crosses the 42-inch-diameter pipeline, as well as installing new manholes and lowering the pipe so that it can siphon under the new 42-inch-diameter pipeline. In addition, initial field inspections indicated that a section of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline at the Hitchcock Road crossing was removed. Therefore, rehabilitation of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline would also include constructing a siphon at the Hitchcock Road crossing in order to restore the continuity of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline between the TP-1 site and the IWTF. After reconstruction, the 33- inch-diameter pipeline would have a calculated capacity of approximately 7 to 7.5 mgd, or approximately 10.8 to 11.6 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Project elements would include:
○ CCTV inspection and condition assessment of existing 33-inch abandoned IWW pipeline; ○ Rehabilitation of a 33-inch abandoned IWW pipeline based on the results of the CCTV and condition assessment;
○ Construction of manholes and installation of a siphon connection at the Hitchcock Road crossing; and
○ Modifications to the existing diversion structure in front of the existing IPS at the IWTF. • Upgrades to Existing Influent Pump Station. The existing IPS is to be replaced with a new influent pump station and the existing IPS is to be converted to a stormwater pump station. As described above, construction of the new influent pump station was analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and, therefore, is not part of the proposed project that is the subject of this Addendum. Upgrades to the existing IPS include the addition of energy-efficient pumps, raising the existing IPS above the 100-year flood, and connections to the rehabilitated 33-inch pipeline for influent stormwater flow and a new force main to discharge segregated stormwater conveyance directly to IWTF Percolation Pond 1, as described above. Because stormwater does not warrant aeration treatment, this new conveyance scheme will enable stormwater to bypass the Aeration Basin treatment process, saving energy and increasing system capacity for treating and processing stormwater for recycling/reuse.

Currently, the existing pump station electrical components, including motor controls, a transformer, and related instrumentation, are located within the 100-year floodplain, making

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 3-4
them vulnerable to inundation during large storm events. This equipment would be inundated in a 100-year flood event, rendering the IPS inoperable. In addition, the electrical components are approximately 45 to 50 years old and have reached the end of their useful life. The City of Salinas would make improvements to select IWTF electrical components associated with the IPS, enhancing its flood and climate resilience. All of these existing components would be replaced with new state-of-the-art equipment at a secure location above the 100-year floodplain.

Rehabilitation of the existing IPS would include:
○ Rehabilitating the existing pump station with three stormwater pumps with combined capacity of 9 mgd;
○ Raising the existing perimeter pump station wall above the 100-year flood event; ○ Construction of a new force main from the IPS to percolation Pond No.1 to divert stormwater flows to Percolation Pond No. 1 without any treatment; ○ Construction of a new electrical building to house all electrical/instrumentation equipment above the 100-year flood; and
○ Installation of an emergency generator above the 100-year flood level to provide power during power outages for both the new and existing pump stations. • Wetland Rehabilitation Pilot Study. The Central Coast Wetlands Group (CCWG) is planning to construct an initial water treatment system at the IWTF consisting of a treatment wetland chamber in a series with several pilot phosphate removal chambers. CCWG will then assess the system’s functionality to determine the most cost-effective phosphate removal process.

3.3 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed improvements are anticipated to commence in August 2024 and extend for approximately 18 months. Construction methodology, equipment, and staging would be the same as identified in the prior environmental documents.

3.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
As described in the prior CEQA documents, the Salinas Pump Station Diversion site is adjacent to and north of the existing TP-1 site and would be maintained by the same M1W operations staff that currently operate TP-1. No additional employee site visits would be required at the TP-1 site. No ongoing materials delivery or solid waste generation would occur. Similarly, the new storage and recovery facilities at the IWTF would be managed by the same number of staff that currently operate the IWTF.

Installation of the trash capture facility would require periodic removal of trash, sediment, oil/grease, and water that has collected at the bottom. It is anticipated that removal would be required several times per year during the rainy season.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 4-1

4.0 CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM

Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
• Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
• The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration.
• Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
• Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. • Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared “if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), this Addendum summarizes the revisions to the PWM/GWR Project, any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the prior CEQA documents were approved, any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the prior CEQA documents were approved, and whether, as a result of any changes or any new

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 4-2
information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the SPERSS Project. This Addendum relies on an environmental analysis of the issues listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-1

5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following environmental analysis evaluates the potential environmental impacts resulting from the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects as compared to the impacts of the PWM/GWR Project, which was analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and whether there would be any difference in identified impacts or required mitigation measures from those identified in the prior CEQA documents. The comparative analysis for each of the environmental issues listed below provides the City of Salinas with a factual basis for determining whether changes in the PWM/GWR Project, changes in circumstances, or new information since approval of the prior CEQA documents require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The basis for each finding is explained in the issues-specific analysis provided below. Because the prior CEQA documents organized the impacts of each project component based on the location of the improvements (e.g., the TP-1 site, the IWTF site, and Hitchcock Road), this Addendum takes the same approach. The SRSW trash capture device, the associated diversion structure, and the 33-inch rehabilitated pipeline would be developed at the TP-1 site. Therefore, the discussion of impacts at the TP-1 site provided below reflects the impacts of these improvements. The proposed siphon for the 33-inch rehabilitated pipeline would be constructed at the 33-inch pipeline crossing at Hitchcock Road, approximately 0.36 mile south of the TP-1 site. This area was previously analyzed for construction activities associated with installation of the 42-inch pipeline that was evaluated in the prior CEQA documents and installed as part of the PWM/GWR Project. Because this improvement is similar in nature and extent to improvements proposed the TP-1 site and is associated with rehabilitation of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline, the discussion of impacts associated with the proposed siphon on Hitchcock Road is generally included with the discussion of impacts at the TP-1 site provided below. Where impacts differ between the TP-1 and Hitchcock Road sites, those impacts are so noted. The new IPS, the upgraded IPS, and the wetland rehabilitation pilot study would be developed at the IWTF site. Therefore, the discussion of impacts at the IWTF site provided below reflects the impacts of these improvements.

As described in detail herein, this analysis confirms that the impacts from the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be no more severe than those projected to result from implementation of the PWM/GWR Project. The projected impacts of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would either be the same as or less than the anticipated levels associated with the PWM/GWR Project, and no new significant impacts would result with implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum to the prior CEQA documents is the appropriate environmental documentation for the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

5.1 AESTHETICS
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources with incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The TP-1 site is located at 156 Hitchcock Road. This site is referenced in the prior CEQA documents as the Salinas Pump Station Diversion Site. The TP-1

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-2
site, which contains existing public utility/facility uses, is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Salinas River, which is located approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest, is the primary natural feature in the vicinity of the TP-1 site. The TP-1 site is not located within a designated scenic vista or a scenic corridor as defined by the Monterey County General Plan.

Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that visual quality of the TP-1 site is considered low. In addition, as State Scenic Highway 68 is located more than 1 mile from the site, prior CEQA documents determined that implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would not substantially impact resources associated with a scenic highway.

The improvements to the TP-1 site proposed by the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include installation of a trash capture device and a diversion facility to improve the capacity and quality of stormwater transported to the IWTF, as well as rehabilitation of an abandoned 33-inch-diameter pipeline to enable stormwater to be diverted to the IWTF separately from industrial wastewater. As these improvements would be located on the same TP-1 site analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and summarized above and would be located underground and out of view, these improvements would not impact the aesthetics or surrounding visual character of the TP-1 site. In addition, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the improvements proposed at the TP-1 site as part of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be underground facilities and pipelines. As such, these improvements would not be visible, and impacts associated with the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than significant. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, aesthetic and visual impacts associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects at the TP-1 site would be less than significant.

The IWTF site is located approximately 1 mile south of the TP-1 site. The existing IWTF site is located adjacent to the Salinas River, downstream of the Davis Road crossing, and is surrounded by agricultural operations to the north, east, and west, with the Salinas River to the south. The IWTF site contains utility-type development as a water and wastewater treatment and conveyance site, but the IWTF site’s visual appearance is largely dominated by the existing percolation ponds that have the appearance of man-made open water. The IWTF site is not located within a designated scenic vista of a scenic corridor as defined by the Monterey County General Plan. Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that visual quality of the site is considered low. In addition, as State Scenic Highway 68 is located over 2 miles from the IWTF site, the prior CEQA documents determined that implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would not substantially impact resources associated with a scenic highway. The improvements to the IWTF site proposed by the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include construction of a new influent pump station; upgrades to the existing IPS, which would connect to the refurbished 33-inch pipeline for influent stormwater flow and discharge segregated stormwater conveyance directly to IWTF Percolation Pond 1; and installation of a wetland pilot project. As these improvements would be located on the same IWTF site analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, these improvements would be consistent with the existing land uses at the IWTF site and the surrounding visual character. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the improvements proposed at the IWTF site as part of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would consist of both underground facilities and pipelines and aboveground structures/pumps.

However, the aboveground structures/pumps would be low-profile (i.e., less than 4 feet above ground). After construction is completed, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects components at the IWTF site that are below ground would not be visible, and those that are aboveground would not have

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-3
permanent lighting installed. As such, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects components at the IWTF site would be less than significant. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, aesthetic and visual impacts associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects at the IWTF site would be less than significant.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts associated with aesthetics or result in new significant impacts.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measures AE-2 through AE-4 to reduce impacts on aesthetics and visual resources associated with the PWM/GWR Project, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and the IWTF sites. Therefore, mitigation measures prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Aesthetics:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No existing mitigation measures would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. In the prior CEQA documents, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources were analyzed as part of the discussion of impacts associated with land use and planning. As such, Section 5.11, Land Use, of this Addendum provides the comparative analysis for impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources.

5.3 AIR QUALITY
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with air quality with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-4
Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents indicated that the North Central Coast Air Basin, which includes Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties, is considered a nonattainment area for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ground-level ozone and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10). The prior CEQA documents determined that while construction of individual PWM/GWR Project components would not have a significant impact on air quality, construction of the PWM/GWR Project as a whole would result in emissions of criteria pollutants, specifically PM10, that may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate an air quality standard, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in a region that is designated as nonattainment under CAAQS. As such, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires that a construction fugitive dust control plan be implemented during construction activities to ensure emissions of PM10 would be reduced to below the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) emission thresholds. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have a less than significant impact associated with construction criteria pollutant emissions, specifically PM10, for which the State is in nonattainment.

The prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would not result in any new stationary sources of air pollutant emissions during operation and emissions of criteria pollutants from operational traffic would be below the thresholds adopted by MBARD for evaluating impacts related to ozone and PM10. As such, the prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would not result in a net increase of criteria pollutants or contribute considerably to existing or projected violations of air quality standards pertaining to ozone or PM10. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that due to the minimal traffic associated with operation of the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would not cause a carbon monoxide violation at surrounding intersections. Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not introduce any new stationary sources of air pollutant emissions during operation. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, operational traffic would be minimal, similar to the PWM/GWR Project. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in a net increase of criteria pollutants or contribute considerably to existing or projected violations of air quality standards pertaining to ozone or PM10.

In addition, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the small amount of project-related traffic would not substantially affect carbon monoxide levels and operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not have the potential to cause a carbon monoxide violation at surrounding intersections.

The prior CEQA documents identified the nearest sensitive receptor to the TP-1 site as the farmhouse on Blanco Road located approximately 1,400 to 2,000 feet away, and the nearest sensitive receptors to the IWTF site as residences across David Road approximately 2,500 feet away.

As detailed in the prior CEQA documents, the PWM/GWR Project would expose sensitive receptors to temporary emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction activities, with the primary concern being exposure to diesel particulate matter emissions associated with operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks. However, based on the MBARD screening criteria for TAC impacts from construction projects, the prior CEQA documents determined that construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to significant levels of TACs. In addition,

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-5
although there may be intermittent odors associated with diesel exhaust during project construction that could be noticeable at residences in close proximity to the TP-1 and IWTF sites, the prior CEQA documents determined that given the distance of the sensitive receptors from the construction sites and the temporary nature of the construction activities, potential odors from construction equipment would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or significant odors.

The prior CEQA documents determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in emissions of TACs that could affect nearby sensitive receptors as the PWM/GWR Project would not have any direct sources of operational TAC emissions and vehicle and truck traffic generated by the PWM/GWR Project would be minimal. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that improvements at the IWTF site would not generate odors beyond those currently present at the site and frequent objectionable odors would not occur at the TP-1 site due to the nature of the proposed improvements (e.g., underground diversion structures and pipes). Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not introduce any new direct sources of operational TAC emissions or new objectionable odors. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, operational traffic associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be minimal. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in emissions of TACs or significant odors that could affect nearby sensitive receptors.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on air quality nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, there would be no new impacts or increase in severity of impacts related to air quality.

Findings Related to Air Quality:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts on fisheries and terrestrial biological

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-6
resources with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Fisheries. The prior CEQA documents identified both the TP-1 and IWTF sites as located in proximity to aquatic resources that may support fisheries. The prior CEQA documents also indicated that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would potentially alter fish habitat conditions as flows would be diverted at certain locations, at various times of the year, and in varying amounts in the Salinas River, Reclamation Ditch, and Tembladero Slough. These changes in flow could impact steelhead trout, tidewater goby, and Monterey roach habitat and populations. As such, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measures BF-1a through BF-1c for implementing improvements at the Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough Diversion sites to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures did not apply to the TP-1 and IWTF sites. The prior CEQA documents also prescribed Mitigation Measure BT-1a, which requires the implementation of construction best practices for construction of all PWM/GWR Project components in order to address impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Although the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects also include a new diversion structure and trash capture facility at the TP-1 site and pump station improvements at the IWTF, these facilities would improve stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance infrastructure and would not divert additional flows from the Salinas River, Reclamation Ditch, or Tembladero Slough. Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not impact steelhead trout and tidewater goby populations or their habitats and Mitigation Measures BF- 1a through BF-1c would not apply. However, Mitigation Measure BT-1a is applicable to the SPERSS Project. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BT-1a, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in significant impacts associated with habitat modification.

The prior CEQA documents determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would result in changes in stream flows that may interfere with fish migration in the Salinas River and Reclamation Ditch. Specifically, PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would reduce flows in the Salinas River by diverting stormwater and IWTF inflow, and PWM/GWR Project components associated with the Reclamation Ditch Diversion would affect flows in the Reclamation Ditch. The prior CEQA documents determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would divert less than 2 percent of the baseline mean annual low in the Salinas River. In addition, the modeling analysis results show that under the PWM/GWR Project, suitable adult migration flows would be reduced below each of the passage flow indicator values less than 2 percent of the time and juvenile migration flows would be reduced below each of the passage flow indicator values less than 3 percent of the time, both relative to existing conditions. Although the percent of flow reductions would vary by month for all indicator flows, changes in flow within any month would be less than 6.7 percent with the highest change in December. Overall, modeling analysis performed in the prior CEQA documents indicated that the change in flow with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in significant impacts to steelhead migration in the Salinas River.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-7
The stormwater diversion structure proposed as part of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would enable additional diversion of stormwater to the IWTF using the rehabilitated 33-inch-diameter pipeline. Currently, all diverted stormwater flows are combined with industrial wastewater, requiring large-capacity pumping at the IPS and treatment via the Aeration Basin at the IWTF.

The diversion facility would allow the stormwater to be conveyed to the IWTF separately from industrial wastewater in order to improve the capacity of flows between the TP-1 and the IWTF, better match water quality to treatment methods, and achieve more sustainable and efficient operation of the IWTF. By separating the stormwater flows from the industrial wastewater, the IWTF would be able to treat more stormwater than under existing conditions. The treated stormwater would then be conveyed to the M1W system to be recycled rather than discharged into the Salinas River. As such, there may be a reduction in flows to the Salinas River given the increased capacity of the new stormwater capture and conveyance infrastructure.

Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects is anticipated to capture an additional 41- AFY. This additional runoff capture is within the total watershed runoff capture assumed in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in a reduction of flows to the Salinas River beyond what was analyzed and discussed in the prior CEQA documents. As the prior CEQA documents determined that the reduction in flows to the Salinas River would result in less than significant impacts on steelhead migration, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would also result in less than significant impacts to steelhead migration in the Salinas River.

Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not involve any work associated the Reclamation Ditch Diversion. Therefore, impacts on fish migration due to affected flows in the Reclamation Ditch would remain the same as discussed in the prior CEQA documents. The prior CEQA documents identified Mitigation Measures BF-2a and BF-2b to maintain migration flows in the Reclamation Ditch and modify the existing San Jon weir to provide for steelhead passage; however, these measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and the IWTF sites and would not apply to the SPERSS Project.

The prior CEQA documents determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in a reduction of fish habitat or populations. As discussed above, the prior CEQA documents determined that changes to flows in the Salinas River would occur with operation of the improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF sites; however, it was determined that this impact would be less than significant. Further, the prior CEQA documents determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in a significant impact on water quality in the Salinas River. Although the SPERSS and SSWMP Project includes a new diversion structure and trash capture facility at the TP-1 site and pump station improvements at the IWTF, these facilities would improve stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance infrastructure to enhance the effectiveness of the PWM/GWR Project and would not divert additional flows from the Salinas River. In addition, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in a reduction of flows to the Salinas River beyond what was analyzed and discussed in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, no additional impacts associated with a reduction of fish habitat, populations, or water quality would occur with implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-8
The prior CEQA documents determined that construction and operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in conflicts with local policies addressing protection of fishery resources or conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Conservation Community Plan (NCCP) as no HCP or NCCP has been adopted in the area. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in conflicts with local policies addressing protection of fishery resources or conflict with any HCP or NCCP.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on fisheries nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BT-1a, as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to fisheries.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measures BF-1a through BF-1c, BF- 2a, and BF-2b to reduce impacts on fisheries, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and the IWTF sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BF-1a through BF-1c, BF-2a, and BF-2b prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS Project.

Terrestrial. The prior CEQA documents identified the TP-1 site as consisting of 35.9 acres of ruderal/developed/active agriculture land and the IWTF site as consisting of 6.4 acres of ruderal/developed/active agriculture land, 244.1 acres of wastewater ponds, and 34.7 acres of riparian habitat. No special status plant species were observed at either the TP-1 or IWTF sites.

As no special-status plant species were observed at the TP-1 or IWTF sites and none are expected to occur, the prior CEQA documents determined that no impacts to special-status plant species would occur during construction at either of these sites.

Mature trees present on both of the sites may provide suitable habitat for roosting bat species and nesting raptors, migratory birds, or other protected avian species. No other suitable habitat for special-status wildlife occurs at the TP-1 site. In order to reduce potential impacts to roosting bat species and nesting raptors, migratory birds, or other protected avian species that may utilize existing mature trees on both the TP-1 and IWTF sites, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measures BT-1b, BT-1g (pre-construction surveys for special-species bats), and BT-1k (pre-construction surveys for protected avian species) to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Although no suitable upland habitat or breeding habitat occurs within the IWTF site, the IWTF site is located adjacent to the Salinas River, where the California red-legged frog (CRLF) is known to occur. Therefore, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure BT-1b, which requires monitoring by a qualified biologist monitor for all ground-disturbing construction activities, and Mitigation Measure BT-1q, which includes measures to avoid and minimize impacts to CRLF.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-9
The prior CEQA documents determined that although the riparian habitat at the IWTF site could support special-status wildlife species and is considered a sensitive habitat, no impacts to any other special-status wildlife species or direct impacts to riparian habitat would occur because construction activities at the IWTF site would be conducted on the eastern side of the wastewater ponds, more than 200 feet from the riparian habitat.

Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar construction and operational impacts associated with special-status species and sensitive habitat as the PWM/GWR Project. In addition, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, no impact to riparian habitat would occur with implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, Mitigation Measures BT-1b, BT-1g, BT-1k, and BT-1q would apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects to reduce potential impacts on special-status species to less than significant levels. The prior CEQA documents also prescribed Mitigation Measures BT-1a (as described in Fisheries above) and BT-1c, which requires the implementation of nonnative, invasive species controls to further reduce construction impacts on biological resources. These measures would also apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Neither the TP-1 or IWTF sites were identified in the prior CEQA documents as being located within documented wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries. As such, the prior CEQA documents determined that no impacts to the movement of native wildlife or to native wildlife nursery sites would occur during construction or operation of the PWM/GWR Project. The prior CEQA documents also determined that construction and operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in conflicts with local policies, ordinances, or an adopted HCP. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not impact the movement of native wildlife or native wildlife nursery sites or conflict with local policies, ordinances, or an adopted HCP.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS Project would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on terrestrial biological resources nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BT-1a, BT-1b, BT-1c, BT-1g, BT-1k, and BT-1q, as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to terrestrial biological resources.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-10
While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measures BT-1d through BT-1f, BT- 1h through BT1-j, BT-1l through BT1-p, BT-2a through BT-2c, and BT-6 to reduce impacts on terrestrial biological resources, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BT-1d through BT-1f, BT-1h through BT1-j, BT-1l through BT1-p, BT-2a through BT-2c, and BT-6 prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS Project.

Findings Related to Biological Resources:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measures BT-1a, BT-1b, BT-1c, BT-1g, BT-1k, and BT-1q would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with cultural resources with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents identified no historical resources at either the TP-1 or IWTF sites. Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project. As the SPERSS Project would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, no impacts to historical resources would occur with implementation of the SPERSS Project.

Based on background research through the California Historic Resources Information System and the Native American Heritage Commission and the findings of the field survey and previous surveys undertaken within the PWM/GWR Project area, the prior CEQA documents determined that neither the TP-1 nor IWTF sites contain recorded or known archaeological resources or human remains.

However, the prior CEQA documents indicated that there is a possibility for inadvertent discovery of previously unknown resources, including human remains, during any portion of project construction. As such, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure CR-2b, detailing measures to address the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, and Mitigation Measure CR-2c, requiring that all listed Native American contacts be notified of any and all discoveries. As the SPERSS Project would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar impacts to archaeological resources as the PWM/GWR Project. Therefore, similar to

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-11
the PWM/GWR Project, Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects to reduce potential impacts on the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains to less than significant levels.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on cultural resources nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c, as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to cultural resources.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measure CR-1, which requires an avoidance and vibration monitoring plan for pipeline installation in the Presidio of Monterey Historic District and Downtown Monterey, and Mitigation Measure CR-2a, which details the specific archaeological monitoring plan applicable to the Montrey Pipeline segment of the CalAm Distribution System, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2a prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Cultural Resources:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.6 ENERGY
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with energy with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis, below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. As discussed in the prior CEQA documents, construction of the PWM/GWR Project would consume fuel energy used by construction vehicles and equipment and bound energy found in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fossil fuels would be used during site clearing, grading, trenching, and construction. However, fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. The prior CEQA documents also indicated that energy consumption for construction would not result in long-term depletion of nonrenewable energy resources and would not

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-12
permanently increase reliance on energy resources that are not renewable. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would not conflict with existing energy standards. As the construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar energy use during construction activities as the PWM/GWR Project. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in long-term depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, permanently increase reliance on energy resources that are not renewable, or conflict with applicable energy standards.

The prior CEQA documents determined that construction of the PWM/GWR Project could result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy if construction equipment is not maintained or if haul trips are not planned efficiently. Therefore, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure EN-1, which requires the preparation of a Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan that identifies specific measures to be implemented to increase the efficient use of construction equipment.

Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, Mitigation Measure EN-1 would apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects and would ensure impacts associated with energy use during construction would be less than significant.

The operation and maintenance of the PWM/GWR Project would result in the ongoing consumption of energy, primarily the use of electricity for pumps, treatment processes, lighting, automated controls, and maintenance equipment. The prior CEQA documents determined that energy demands would be met by the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) grid. Specifically, the improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF site would be served by local PG&E electricity and distribution systems and would not require a new PG&E utility connection. In addition, the TP-1 site would receive a large portion of its power from solar technologies that the City would purchase. Overall, because the electrical power would be provided directly from the PG&E grid (which has adequate capacity to supply the PWM/GWR Project demands), the existing treatment facilities are partially powered by solar energy and cogeneration of biogas, the PWM/GWR Project would be designed to be energy-efficient, and the energy resources that would be consumed would be for the public benefit, the prior CEQA documents determined the operational energy impact of the PWM/GWR Project would be less than significant. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with uses similar to those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not introduce any new, energy-intensive facilities at the sites, the energy consumption of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to the PWM/GWR Project. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the impacts associated with operational energy use would be less than significant.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on energy nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure EN-1, as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to energy.

Findings Related to Energy:

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-13

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measure EN-1 would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with geology and soils with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents determined that construction of the PWM/GWR Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Specifically, at the TP-1 site, the prior CEQA documents determined that given the limited area of disturbance (less than 0.25 acre) and the location of the TP-1 site within an area of low erosion hazard, construction at the TP-1 site would not result in significant erosion or loss of topsoil.

The IWTF site is also located within an area of low erosion hazard; however, due to the larger area of disturbance (approximately 3 acres) and the IWTF site’s proximity to the Salinas River, the prior CEQA documents determined that grading, pipeline installation, and other ground-disturbing activities would result in potentially significant erosion impacts. As discussed below in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, construction at the IWTF site would require approval of a grading permit and implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP), which would ensure that erosion and loss of topsoil impacts would be less than significant.

Construction associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would occur at both the TP-1 and IWTF sites. The rehabilitation of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline would also include the construction of a siphon at the Hitchcock Road crossing in order to restore continuity of the 33-inch-diameter pipeline between the TP-1 site and the IWTF. The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. In addition, although implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would require the construction of a siphon at the Hitchcock Road crossing, potential impacts associated with activities at the Hitchcock Road crossing were included in the prior CEQA documents. The prior CEQA documents did not identify any significant impacts associated with construction or operation at this location. Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil as the PWM/GWR Project. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction at the TP-1 site would not result in significant erosion or loss of topsoil, and with the approval of a grading permit and implementation of a SWPPP consistent with regulatory requirements, soil erosion or the loss of topsoil due to construction at the IWTF site would be less than significant.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-14
The prior CEQA documents determined that that exposure to, or creation of, soil stability hazards would not result in a significant impact at either the TP-1 or IWTF sites. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soil. Therefore, impacts associated with soil collapse or exposure to, or creation of, soil stability hazards during construction and implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

As identified in the prior CEQA documents, neither the TP-1 site nor the IWTF site are located in the vicinity of known, active, or potentially active fault traces or zones. Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that no impacts would result from fault rupture at these sites. However, the prior CEQA documents determined that all PWM/GWR Project components would be located within a seismically active region and an earthquake on local or regional faults could result in damage to structures and pipelines due to seismic shaking and/or liquefaction. Further, the TP-1 and IWTF sites are located within areas of high liquefaction susceptibility. Generally, the prior CEQA documents concluded that damages to facilities would be localized and minimized with adherence to local regulations, building codes, and recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports. The application of applicable seismic design criteria associated with standard engineering practices, as recommended in project-specific geotechnical reports, would further ensure that the facilities would be designed and built to minimize the risk of damage. Although damage from an earthquake could result in temporary cessation of PWM/GWR Project operations until repairs are completed, the prior CEQA documents determined that the effects of seismic ground shaking and liquefaction would not result in a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death resulting in a significant impact. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not expose people or structures to substantial risk of adverse effects due to fault rupture at these sites. Because the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with uses similar to those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, damage from an earthquake would also be localized and minimized with adherence to local regulations, building codes, and recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, although damage from an earthquake could result in temporary cessation of project operations until repairs are completed, effects of seismic ground shaking and liquefaction would not result in a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death resulting in a significant impact.

The prior CEQA documents determined that there is the potential for soil types at the TP-1 and IWTF sites that exhibit expansive and corrosive properties. The prior CEQA documents described that detailed site-specific geotechnical engineering studies, including subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, would be performed during project design to further assess site soils and provide design details for facility plans in response to soil conditions. Implementation of recommendations in the geotechnical studies would ensure that impacts associated with expansive and corrosive soils would be less than significant. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP- 1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and project-specific geotechnical engineering studies would be performed during project design that would include

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-15
recommendations to address expansive soils, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts would be less than significant.

The prior CEQA documents analyzed impacts related to paleontological resources during construction of the PWM/GWR Project and identified less than significant impacts. The prior CEQA documents indicated that the TP-1 site is within an area mapped by the County as having a low potential for discovery of paleontological resources. While the IWTF site was identified as being located within an area with the potential for discovery of paleontological resources, because the PWM/GWR Project components would be constructed within a limited extent of the Monterey Formation, within previously disturbed rights-of-way consisting of fill materials or previously disturbed materials, impacts to known paleontological resources would be less than significant. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects improvements at the IWTF site would not require substantial excavation beyond what was analyzed and discussed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts on known paleontological impacts from implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measure GS-5 to address impacts to a segment of the CalAm Distribution Pipeline (Monterey Pipeline) along Del Monte Boulevard that could become exposed due to projected sea level rise and associated coastal erosion, this mitigation measure was not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GS-5 prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Geology and Soils:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No existing mitigation measures would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-16

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents determined that construction and operation for the PWM/GWR Project would generate GHG emissions; however, these emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and would not result in a considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts of GHG emissions and the related global climate change impacts. In addition, the PWM/GWR Project was found to not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, as the PWM/GWR Project would not conflict with provisions or implementation of the State Scoping Plan.

As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not include a new source of substantial GHG emissions, construction and operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in GHG emissions impacts.

Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No mitigation measures were prescribed in prior CEQA documents, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials with the incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Project. The prior CEQA documents determined that although construction of the PWM/GWR Project would involve the use of hazardous materials (primarily petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuels, lubricants, and cleaning solvents), the transport

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-17
and use of these hazardous materials would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials law and regulations set by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). As such, the prior CEQA documents determined that the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment relating to the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. As construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would transport and use similar hazardous materials during construction as the PWM/GWR Project. As with the PWM/GWR Project, the transport and use of these hazardous materials would be required to comply with existing and future hazardous materials law and regulations set by Caltrans and the CHP. In addition, the prior CEQA documents indicated that the operation of proposed improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not include the routine storage or use of hazardous materials, except for minimal amounts of fuel and lubricants. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with uses similar to those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, the operation of the SPERSS Project would result in similar use of hazardous materials. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts associated with the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

The prior CEQA documents identified two types of hazardous material releases that could occur during construction, including the accidental release of hazardous materials that are routinely used during construction activities and the potential for construction activities to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater at the site. As discussed in the prior CEQA documents, the construction contractors would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP for construction activities in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, which would include measures for preventing spills, inspecting equipment, and fuel storage. With implementation of a SWPPP, the prior CEQA documents determined that potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous material that are routinely used during construction activities would be less than significant. As discussed below in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would also be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP for construction activities in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, with the applicable hazardous materials storage and stormwater permitting regulations, impacts from the potential release of hazardous materials routinely used during construction activities for the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

In order to assess the existing hazardous conditions at the construction sites, the prior CEQA documents identified a list of environmental cases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The database search did not identify any hazardous materials release sites within 0.25 mile of either the TP-1 or IWTF sites. As such, the prior CEQA documents determined that the potential for construction activities to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater at the sites would be less than significant, and the construction and operation of improvements at these sites would not occur on a known hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The prior CEQA documents also identified no schools within 0.25 mile of either site. Because the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-18
prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in less than significant impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials at the site and would not occur on a known hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the construction at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would neither result in nor create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of the school.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measures HH-2a through HH-2c, which require the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Health and Safety Plan, and Materials and Dewatering Disposal Plan, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, mitigation measures prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No existing mitigation measures would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts on groundwater hydrology and water quality, and less than significant impacts on surface water hydrology and water quality with incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below. The prior CEQA documents also identified two beneficial impacts with operation of the PWM/GWR Project:
increased groundwater quality in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and increased marine water quality.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Groundwater. The prior CEQA documents indicated that construction of the PWM/GWR Project would result in the limited, temporary use of water, primarily for compaction and dust control.

This water would be supplied from either the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant, when it is experiencing a surplus of water needed for agriculture demands, or groundwater stored

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-19
beneath the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The prior CEQA documents determined that because of the limited amount of water needed and the temporary nature of the use, the use of water during construction would not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater recharge, volume, or levels. As construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would require a similar amount of water for compaction and dust control as the PWM/GWR Project, the use of water during construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater recharge, volume, or levels.

The prior CEQA documents also determined that although some water would be used during construction, the amount of water to be used at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not infiltrate the subsurface in significant quantities or carry substantial concentrations of pollutants to groundwater. In addition, as construction of the PWM/GWR Project components would result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of the site, the construction contractors would be required to implement a SWPPP for construction activities in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. With the implementation of a SWPPP (including best management practices [BMPs]), during construction at both the TP-1 and IWTF sites, the prior CEQA documents determined that impacts associated with groundwater quality would be less than significant. As construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements, including the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts associated with groundwater quality during construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

As discussed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would alter the operation of the IWTF in terms of the amounts and types of water stored at the facility. These changes would alter the quantity and quality of percolation at the sites, which would affect the quantity and quality of the Salinas River and groundwater recharge in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Bains. However, the prior CEQA documents determined that local changes in recharge and water levels, as well as effects on nearby wells, would be less than significant due to the diversions of surface water from the Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough, and Blanco Draft, and the diversions of agricultural wash water and stormwater to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with uses similar to those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not modify the diversions of surface water from the Reclamation Ditch, Tembladero Slough, and Blanco Draft, or the diversions of agricultural wash water and stormwater to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Further, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would enable additional diversion of stormwater to the IWTF. Currently, all diverted stormwater flows are combined with industrial wastewater, requiring large-capacity pumping at the IPS and treatment via the Aeration Basin at the IWTF. The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would allow the stormwater to be conveyed to the IWTF separately from industrial wastewater, which would improve the capacity of flows between the TP-1 and IWTF, better match water quality to treatment methods, and achieve more sustainable and efficient operation of the IWTF. With implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, the stormwater would also be conveyed directly to Percolation Pond 1 at the

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-20
IWTF. With implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, the City anticipates increasing stormwater capture to the IWTF by an average of 41 AFY and a peak of up to 652 AFY.

Therefore, local changes in recharge and water levels, as well as effects on nearby wells, which would occur with implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant, similar to the PWM/GWR Project.

Due to the limited amount of impervious surfaces constructed at the TP-1 and IWTF sites (less than 200 square feet [sf]), and because the surrounding area would remain unpaved, the prior CEQA documents determined that the increase in impervious surface area at these sites would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in the construction of significantly more impervious surface area at the TP-1 and IWTF sites than what was analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at these sites.

Because the PWM/GWR Project would provide additional water for downgradient groundwater extraction, the prior CEQA documents indicated that implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would result in both higher and lower water levels in existing basin wells over time, depending on the timing of extraction and the current storage in the basin. However, modeling performed for the prior CEQA documents determined that simulated water levels would be generally higher than pre-project levels. Further, it was determined that no nearby municipal or private production wells would experience a reduction in well yield and all existing wells would be capable of pumping the current level of production or up to the permitted production rights.

Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that impacts related to groundwater supply would be less than significant. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would not include any new uses that would require substantial groundwater supply, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, operation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in a less than significant impact to water levels in existing basin wells.

As described in the prior CEQA documents, seepage into the Salinas River derived from existing IWTF pond percolation consistently exceeds the surface water quality objective for nitrate and occasionally degrades Salinas River water quality with respect to total dissolved solids, chloride, and phosphorus. Because the PWM/GWR Project would decrease the annual volume of water percolated at the IWTF, the prior CEQA documents determined that implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would decrease the input of those contaminants to the river, resulting in a beneficial impact. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP- 1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, would not substantially increase percolation of contaminated waters, and would be subject to similar federal, State, and local statutes and regulations established to protect water quality, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-21
Surface Water. The prior CEQA documents indicated that construction of the PWM/GWR Project would degrade water quality as a result of erosion and siltation generated from earthmoving activities or the accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals. As construction of the PWM/GWR Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soils, the prior CEQA documents indicated that all construction activities would be subject to the currently adopted NPDES Construction General Permit, including preparation of a SWPPP, and the Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements. In addition, because earthwork activities within waters of the State (i.e., trenching and excavation) is considered a discharge and is regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the PWM/GWR Project would also require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the USACOE and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit (including the implementation of a SWPPP), Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and other waste discharge requirements as necessary, the prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would have a less than significant impact on water quality during construction. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located on the same sites as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be required to comply with the most current NPDES Construction General Permit (General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities [Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002]), Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, and other applicable waste discharge requirements. By complying with applicable permits and requirements, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in a less than significant impact on water quality during construction.

The prior CEQA documents also indicated that due to varying subsurface water levels and depths of excavation throughout the PWM/GWR Project area, evacuation during construction of project components may encounter shallow or perched groundwater, requiring temporary construction dewatering. Specifically, the TP-1 and IWTF sites are located in an area underlain by Holocene alluvial deposits, with groundwater at approximately 10 feet below ground surface.

As a result, the prior CEQA documents determined that trench excavations at these sites may encounter groundwater, moist to wet soils, and soft ground conditions, and trench dewatering may be required. However, most of the dewatering effluent generated during construction and excavation would be considered low-threat and can be discharged to land or local receiving water provided that the effluent complies with the currently adopted General Wate Discharge Permit relating to construction dewatering activities. As such, the prior CEQA documents determined that with adherence to permit requirements, construction dewatering associated with the PWM/GWR Project would not have a significant impact on water quality. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located on the same sites as analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, construction of the SPERSS Project may also require trench dewatering. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction dewatering would be required to comply with the most current dewatering permit (Waste Discharge Requirements NPDES General Permit for Discharges with Limited Threat to Water Quality [Order No. R3-2022-0335, NPDES No.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-22
CAG99304]). Therefore, with adherence to current permit requirements, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not have a significant impact on water quality due to construction dewatering.

The prior CEQA documents determined that the diversion of agricultural wash water and City stormwater associated with improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would allow for water to be conveyed to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to be treated and recycled.

Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would provide increased beneficial impacts due to the inclusion of the SRSW trash capture device and construction of the Segregated Stormwater Diversion Facility at the TP-1 site. The trash capture device and a diversion facility, including conveyance piping, metering, and associated infrastructure, would be installed at TP-1 to improve the capacity and quality of stormwater transported to the IWTF. The SRSW trash capture device would treat stormwater flows from the SRSW and support compliance with the City of Salinas MS4 NPDES Permit (Order No. R3-2019-0073, NPDES No. CA0049981) by improving the water quality of flows discharged to the Salinas River and the IWTF.

Implementation of the SPERSS Project would allow stormwater to be conveyed to the IWTF separately from industrial wastewater in order to improve the capacity of flows between the TP- 1 and IWTF, better match water quality to treatment methods, and achieve more sustainable and efficient operation of the IWTF. With implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, the stormwater would also be conveyed directly to Percolation Pond 1 at the IWTF, resulting in energy savings and improved operational capacity and flexibility. Additionally, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include implementation of a wetland rehabilitation pilot study to determine the most cost-effective phosphate removal process. Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in additional beneficial effects to water quality compared to the PWM/GWR Project due to the additional diversion and treatment of polluted waters and the inclusion of the wetland rehabilitation pilot study.

The prior CEQA documents indicated that implementation of the PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would increase the amount of impervious surface area at the sites, thereby altering drainage patterns and potentially increasing stormwater runoff.

However, due to the limited amount of impervious surfaces constructed at the TP-1 and IWTF sites (less than 200 sf), and because the surrounding area would remain unpaved, rainwater falling on the facilities would sheet flow to unpaved areas and be allowed to infiltrate the ground in accordance with State and local permits. In addition, the prior CEQA documents indicated that the PWM/GWR Project would be subject to the post-construction stormwater management requirements of applicable municipal stormwater permits and other requirements that require projects to implement post-construction stormwater BMPs and incorporate low impact development measures into the final site designs and construction in compliance with the applicable municipal stormwater permits. As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in the construction of significantly more impervious surface area at the TP-1 and IWTF sites than what was analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and because the SPERSS Project would also require BMPs and low-impact development measures in compliance with the applicable municipal stormwater permits, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have a less than significant impact related to alteration of drainage patterns and increased runoff.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-23
The prior CEQA documents also indicated that portions of the PWM/GWR Project, including improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, would be located within a 100-year flood hazard area and within the area of inundation in the unlikely event that either the Nacimiento or San Antonio dams fail. However, as the improvements at the TP-1 site would be below ground, the prior CEQA documents determined that construction of the improvements would not impede or redirect flood flows. The prior CEQA documents further determined that improvements at the IWTF site would be small and would not impede or redirect flood flows or necessitate revision of the flood maps. However, it should be noted that the prior CEQA documents determined that the ponds at the IWTF site themselves could be damaged by flood flows and the City may be required to rebuild or reconstruct all or part of the Salinas Treatment Facility in the event of a 100-year flood. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites are not considered at risk of loss due to inundation from dam failure because they include structures and infrastructure that would not be damaged by temporary inundation and because they would not expose people or structures to risk from flooding due to sea level rise and storm surges or tides, as they are located outside of coastal erosion hazard zones.

Implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located on the same sites as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would be subject to the same flood hazard conditions. Improvements at the TP-1 site under the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not include additional aboveground structures that could impede or redirect flows. The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects includes upgrades to select IWTF electrical components associated with the IPS, which would enhance its flood and climate resilience. All of these existing components, including motor controls, a transformer, and related instrumentation, would be replaced with new state-of-the-art equipment at a secure location above the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have a less than significant impact associated with the impediment or redirection of flood flows.

In addition, because the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located at the same sites as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would develop the sites with similar infrastructure and uses, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar impacts associated with inundation from dam failure and risk of flooding due to sea level rise and storm surges or tides as the PWM/GWR Project. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts would be less than significant.

The prior CEQA documents also determined that operation of the PWM/GWR Project would not expose people or structures to substantial risk from flooding due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow as the PWM/GWR Project would not construct habitable structures near isolated bodies of water subject to inundation by seiche, no mudflows have been mapped at the sites, and the predominantly underground facilities would be located outside of the geographic area likely to be damaged by a tsunami. Because implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would occur on the same sites as those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects components would not expose people or structures to substantial risk from flooding due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, and impacts would be less than significant.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-24
Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on hydrology and water quality nor result in new significant impacts.

While the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure HS-4 to minimize erosion and failure of exposed or unvegetated banks, this mitigation measure was not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, mitigation measures prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Hydrology and Water Quality:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No existing mitigation measures would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.11 LAND USE
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with land use, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation would be required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, the SPERSS Project would be subject to the same land use plans discussed in the prior CEQA documents.

Both the TP-1 and IWTF sites are located within existing public road rights-of-way and public facility sites.

The prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project components would conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. As such, the prior CEQA documents prescribed mitigation to reduce potential impacts on the environment, which would ensure the PWM/GWR Project would be consistent with relevant plans. Mitigation measures relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, noise and vibration, public services and utilities, and traffic and transportation were prescribed throughout the prior CEQA documents in order to reduce potential impacts resulting from implementation of the PWM/GWR Project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be subject to the applicable mitigation measures detailed in the prior CEQA documents and discussed throughout this Addendum in the

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-25
analyses for each issue area. With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS Project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations.

The TP-1 site is predominantly surrounded by land within unincorporated Monterey County that is currently used for agricultural production. The prior CEQA documents identified that the TP-1 site is designated as Other Land by the California Department of Conservation. As such, implementation of the PWM/GWR Project at the TP-1 site would not result in any conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Since a portion of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located on the same TP-1 site analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in a conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources would be less than significant.

The IWTF site is surrounded by agricultural operations to the north, east, and west, and the Salinas River to the south. The prior CEQA documents identified the IWTF site as designated by the California Department of Conservation as both Prime Farmland and Urban and Build-Up Land. The PWM/GWR Project included the slip-lining of an existing 33-inch industrial wastewater pipeline within land designated as Prime Farmland. To minimize temporary construction-related disturbance impacts to agricultural uses in areas designated as Prime Farmland, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure LU-1 (Minimize Disturbance to Farmland), which requires that construction contractors minimize ground disturbance on lands designated as important farmland and restore the impacted farmland to pre-construction conditions.

The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, as currently proposed, would include rehabilitation of a 33-inch pipeline for influent stormwater flow, which, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, would require some construction work within land designated as Prime Farmland. However, this work would not result in the permanent conversion of agricultural land to a nonagricultural use and would not result in a substantial temporary disturbance of agricultural uses in areas designated as Prime Farmland beyond what was analyzed and mitigated in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have a less than significant impact associated with the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use during construction activities.

The prior CEQA documents also determined that no lands in the PWM/GWR project area, which included the TP-1 and IWTF sites, were enrolled in the Williamson Act program. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have no impacts associated with conflict with lands under a Williamson Act contract.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on land use and planning or agriculture and forestry resources, nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to agricultural resources.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-26
While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measure LU-3 to reduce operational impacts on farmland, this mitigation measure was not prescribed for project components at the TP- 1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measure LU-3 prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS Project.

Findings Related to Land Use:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with mineral resources, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be subject to the same mineral resource conditions discussed in the prior CEQA documents.

The prior CEQA documents determined that neither the TP-1 nor the IWTF site is located within a designated mineral resource zone (MRZ) and therefore do not contain any known locally important mineral resources. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located in the same area as the PWM/GWR Project, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State, or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

Findings Related to Mineral Resources:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-27

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No mitigation measures were prescribed in the prior CEQA documents, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.13 NOISE
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents analyzed impacts on noise and vibration with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project. Although the prior CEQA documents identified two significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise, these impacts only occurred at the Tembladero Slough and during construction of the Monterey Pipeline Alternative. Neither of these significant and unavoidable impacts were associated with construction activities at the TP-1 or IWTF sites. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would have less than significant impacts associated with noise and vibration, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents determined that the maximum noise levels at the nearest residences generated by construction activities at both the TP- 1 and IWTF sites would not exceed the significance thresholds for speech interference during the day or sleep disturbance at night. In addition, construction noise levels (approximately 45 A- weighted decibels [dBA] equivalent continuous noise level [Leq]) from construction at the TP-1 site at the nearest residences would be below the City’s noise standards. The prior CEQA documents also determined that construction-related vibration at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not exceed Caltrans’ recommendation for vibration limits to prevent the damage of nearby structures.

Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that construction of the PWM/GWR Project would result in less than significant noise and vibration impacts and would not exceed or violate applicable standards. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located at the same sites analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would require similar construction activities, including methods, equipment, and duration, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would have less than significant noise and vibration impacts.

The prior CEQA documents determined that operational noise impacts at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would be less than significant. Under the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, no new permanent noise- generating equipment is proposed at either the TP-1 or IWTF sites and operational noise levels at both sites would be similar to those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-28
While the prior CEQA documents did prescribed Mitigation Measures NV-1a through NV-1d, NV-2a, and NV-2b to address significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts, these mitigation measures were not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and the IWTF sites. Therefore, mitigation measures prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

Findings Related to Noise:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No existing mitigation measures would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with population and housing, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not include the construction of new homes or businesses in the area. In addition, the prior CEQA documents indicated that the construction workforce requirements for the PWM/GWR Project would be met with the local labor force within the Monterey Bay area, which would not create demand for additional housing. While some workers might temporarily relocate from other areas, the increase would be minor and temporary, and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in population. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in substantial population growth in the region during construction or operation.

Findings Related to Population and Housing:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-29

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No mitigation measures were prescribed in the prior CEQA documents, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with public services, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents determined that any demand for public services with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would be met through existing service providers without the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain existing service levels. Because the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not include housing or employment creation facilities and would not result in substantial population growth, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, would not increase demand for school services, new park facilities, or other public facilities or services within the vicinity of the project site.

The prior CEQA documents determined that construction-related solid waste disposal would not exceed the current Monterey Peninsula Landfill permitted daily solid waste acceptance rate.

Construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be similar to those identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and would result in similar amounts of construction solid waste. In addition, the proposed improvements at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not generate operational solid waste that would exceed the Monterey Peninsula Landfill permitted daily tonnage. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP projects would not exceed landfill capacity during construction or operation.

Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, construction waste materials generated by the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects could make it difficult for the local jurisdictions to achieve solid waste diversion goals and other local regulations. Therefore, Mitigation Measure PS-3, requiring preparation and implementation of a construction waste reduction and recycling plan, would remain applicable to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

The prior CEQA documents determined that the amount of construction water used at any individual construction sites would be negligible (estimated to be a one-time use of approximately 70 acre-feet total, or about 1.1 acre-foot per acre of ground disturbance) in comparison to total water demand of tens of thousands of acre-feet every year within the surrounding area. Further, no new or expanded water supplies, entitlements, or facilities would be needed to meet construction- related water demands. The prior CEQA documents also determined that implementation of the

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-30
PWM/GWR Project would result in minimal increased water demand due to the employment of nine new permanent workers, which could be served by existing water suppliers.

The prior CEQA documents indicated that the PWM/GWR Project operations would require substantial new sources of water supplies to meet its project objectives of recycling wastewater for beneficial use. Technical reports supporting the prior CEQA documents and impacts analysis and other facts in the record demonstrate that it is reasonably likely that approximately 16,000 to 17,000 AFY of surplus waters can feasibly be made available to meet PWM/GWR Project demands of approximately 9,860 AFY. As such, the prior CEQA documents concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The improvements to the TP-1 and IWTF sites proposed by the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not generate a significant water demand. Therefore, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not generate significant water demand during construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the prior CEQA documents, construction at all sites would result in minimal wastewater generation from construction workers, and the existing Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has more than sufficient capacity to serve temporary construction-related increases in wastewater requiring treatment. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that the PWM/GWR Project would result in a minimal increase in wastewater treatment demand due to the employment of nine new permanent workers, which could be treated by existing infrastructure. The improvements to the TP-1 and IWTF sites proposed by the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not generate additional wastewater demand beyond what was identified in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not generate significant wastewater demand during construction or operation.

The prior CEQA documents determined that any demand for recreational facilities with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project would be met through existing facilities without the need for new or physically altered facilities to maintain existing service levels. Because the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not include housing or employment creation facilities and would not result in substantial population growth, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, would not increase demand for new park facilities within the vicinity of the project site.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts associated with public services, recreation, or utilities and service systems nor result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-3, as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to public services, recreation, or utilities and service systems.

Findings Related to Public Services:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-31

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measure PS-3 would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.16 RECREATION
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with recreation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. In prior CEQA documents, impacts associated with recreation were analyzed as part of the discussion of impacts to public services. As such, Section

5.15, Public Services, of this Addendum provides the comparative analysis for impacts associated with recreation.

5.17 TRANSPORTATION
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with transportation with incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents determined that construction of PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 site would generate approximately 34 daily construction worker trips distributed across two routes, with approximately 7 peak-hour trips along any one route. Construction of PWM/GWR Project components at the IWTF site would generate approximately 48 daily construction trips distributed across two routes, with approximately 13 peak-hour trips along any one route. Due to the low volumes along these routes and the short duration of the construction period, the prior CEQA documents determined that traffic impacts during construction of components at both the TP-1 and IWTF sites would be less than significant. In addition, the prior CEQA documents determined that construction at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would have no impact on parking in the area as the construction of these facility improvements would be set back from roadways, bike and pedestrian pathways, and public access to parking. Implementation of the SPERSS Project would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses at a similar intensity as that analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. Therefore, construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects at these sites would be similar to the PWM/GWR Project, requiring similar numbers of construction worker vehicle trips and parking spaces.

Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, temporary traffic and parking impacts associated with construction of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

The prior CEQA documents determined that construction activities at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not result in any traffic delays, safety hazards, or disruption of access as the construction of project improvements at these sites would not be within roadways. Construction activities at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would also not impede vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic flow or disrupt public transportation. However, the use of trucks to transport construction equipment and materials to and from construction sites could affect road conditions on local roadways that may not have been constructed to support use by heavy construction trucks and vehicles. Therefore, construction truck

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-32
trips could cause excessive wear on these roadways. In order to address this potential impact, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure TR-3, which requires rehabilitation of any roadways damaged following construction. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be located at the same TP-1 and IWTF sites analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in any traffic delays, safety hazards, or disruption of access, similar to the proposed project. In addition, although implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would require the construction of a siphon at the Hitchcock Road crossing, potential impacts associated with activities at the Hitchcock Road crossing were included in the prior CEQA documents. The prior CEQA documents did not identify any significant impacts associated with construction or operation at this location. Therefore, construction activities at this location are not anticipated to result in any traffic delays, safety hazards, or disruption of access, similar to the PWM/GWR Project. [To be confirmed pending information from Vinod.] Also, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, Mitigation Measure TR-3 would apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects to reduce potential impacts related to the degradation of local roadways to less than significant levels.

The prior CEQA documents determined that PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites would not require new employees for operation or maintenance of the facilities, result in the ongoing delivery of materials, or generate solid waste that would need to be hauled off site.

Therefore, the prior CEQA documents determined that no impact related to operational traffic would occur with implementation of PWM/GWR Project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites.

As implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would develop the TP-1 and IWTF sites with similar uses as the PWM/GWR Project, operation of the proposed improvements would result in similar traffic impacts on the surrounding circulation system. However, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would include the installation of a trash capture device at the TP-1 site, which would require vacuum trucks to periodically pump out trash, sediment, oil/grease, and water that has collected at the bottom as part of ongoing operation/maintenance activities. Although this would result in a small increase in vehicle trips to and from the TP-1 site not previously identified and analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, this small increase in traffic would be minimal relative to existing conditions and would not substantially increase daily traffic volumes on local or regional roadways as the removal of trash, sediment, oil/grease, and water from the bottom of the trash capture device would occur only several times per year during the rainy season. Similar to the PWM/GWR Project, no new employees would be required at either the TP-1 or IWTF sites and no additional daily vehicle trips to and from the IWTF site would occur with implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. Therefore, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, impacts related to operational traffic associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be less than significant.

While the prior CEQA documents did prescribe Mitigation Measure TR-2 to reduce impacts from roadway construction and detours, this mitigation measure was not prescribed for project components at the TP-1 and IWTF sites. Therefore, mitigation measures prescribed for the PWM/GWR Project would not apply to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-33
Findings Related to Transportation:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would apply, and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. Although the prior CEQA documents did not specifically address tribal cultural resources, the prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with cultural resources and included mitigation to address potential impacts on tribal cultural resources with implementation of the PWM/GWR Project.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. As previously discussed, no recorded or known archaeological resources or human remains were identified on either the TP-1 or IWTF sites.

However, the prior CEQA documents prescribed Mitigation Measure CR-2b, detailing measures to address the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, and Mitigation Measure CR-2c, requiring that all listed Native American contacts be notified of any and all discoveries. These mitigation measures would also be applicable to the discovery of unknown tribal cultural resources and/or Native American remains. As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would result in similar impacts on tribal cultural resources as the PWM/GWR Project. Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would remain applicable to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects to reduce potential impacts on the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources or Native American remains to less than significant levels.

Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts on tribal cultural resources, nor would it result in new significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c as discussed above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to cultural resources.

Findings Related to Tribal Cultural Resources:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-34

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c would apply and no new mitigation measures would be required.

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with utilities and service systems with incorporation of mitigation, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. In prior CEQA documents, impacts to utilities and service systems were analyzed as part of the discussion of impacts to public services. As such, Section 5.15, Public Services, of this Addendum provides the comparative analysis for impacts associated with utilities and service systems.

5.20 WILDFIRE
Summary Finding of the Prior CEQA Documents. The prior CEQA documents concluded that the PWM/GWR Project would have less than significant impacts associated with wildfire, as discussed in more detail in the comparative analysis below, and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects. The prior CEQA documents indicated that the TP-1 and IWTF sites are located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and are not located within any Fire Hazard Zone. However, an area of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within an LRA is located approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the IWTF site. The prior CEQA documents determined that because construction of the PWM/GWR Project would be required to comply with the Public Resources Code and any additional requirements imposed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and local fire protection departments, potential impacts related to wildland fires due to construction activities would be less than significant.

As the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be implemented at the TP-1 and IWTF sites, which were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, and because construction activities associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would also be required to comply with the Public Resources Code and any additional requirements imposed by CAL FIRE and the local fire protection departments, similar to the PWM/GWR Project, potential impacts related to wildland fires due to construction activities would be less than significant.

Although the prior CEQA documents did not address potential operational impacts related to wildfire, improvements proposed as part of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would be consistent with and similar in nature to existing facilities at the TP-1 and IWTF sites and would not include any design features that would increase the potential for wildlife, affect emergency access/response, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire slope instability or drainage and runoff. Therefore, impacts related to wildlife would be less than significant.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 5-35
Based on the information in the prior CEQA documents and this environmental analysis, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would neither substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts associated with wildfire nor result in new significant impacts.

Findings Related to Wildfire:

1. No new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major changes to the prior CEQA documents;

2. No substantial change in project circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior CEQA documents;

3. No new information not known at the time the prior CEQA documents were approved showing new or more severe significant effects; and

4. No mitigation measures were prescribed in the prior CEQA documents and no new mitigation measures would be required.

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 6-1

6.0 DETERMINATION
Based on the information and analyses in this Addendum to the prior CEQA documents for the PWM/GWR Project and pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Salinas has determined the following.

6.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
There are no substantial changes associated with the SPERSS Project that would require major revisions of the prior CEQA documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the prior CEQA documents. Additionally, the changes identified with the SPERSS Project do not substantially change the scope of proposed improvements proposed and evaluated in the prior CEQA documents.

6.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
The existing environmental conditions or circumstances under which the SPERSS Project is being undertaken have not changed, and implementation of the proposed minor modifications to the PWM/GWR Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant environmental effects compared to those disclosed in the prior CEQA documents.

6.3 NEW INFORMATION
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the prior CEQA documents were approved, has been identified to show that the proposed minor modifications to the PWM/GWR Project would be expected to result in:

1. One or more new significant effects not discussed in the prior CEQA documents;

2. Impacts determined to be significant in the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects that would be substantially more severe;

3. Additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the prior CEQA document; or

4. Additional mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible that would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In addition, the proposed minor modifications associated with the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not require new mitigation measures because no new or substantially more severe impacts are expected beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 6-2
This page intentionally left blank

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 7-1

7.0 CONCLUSION
On the basis of the evaluation presented above, the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects, if implemented, would not result in any of the conditions listed under Section 5.0, CEQA Framework for Use of an Addendum, of this memorandum, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Thus, this Addendum satisfies the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.

Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum to the prior CEQA documents.

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) 7-2
This page intentionally left blank

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25)

APPENDIX A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 2024

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25) This page intentionally left blank

C E Q A A D D E N D U M
O C T O B E R 202 4

S P E R S S A N D S S W M P P R O J E C T S

S A L I N A S, C A L I F O R N I A

I:\PWWWE\Brian Frus Documents\IWTF Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility\Grant Prop 1 Round 2\City Council\SPERSS_Addendum.docx (04/08/25)

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 1

SALINAS PROJECT TO ENHANCE REGIONAL STORMWATER SUPPLY (SPERSS)

AND SALINAS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SSWMP)

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the Addendum to the prior CEQA documents prepared for the Pure Water Monterey/ Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR Project). The MMRP, which is found in Table A, lists the mitigation measures from the prior CEQA documents that are applicable to the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects and provides mitigation monitoring requirements only for those measures that still apply . This MMRP table is intended to help the Cit y prepare the conditions of approval for the current project and to ensure compliance with the applicable mitigation measures during implementation of the SPERSS and SSWMP Projects.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measures. The second and third columns identify the timing and implementation responsibility for the mitigation measure. The fourth and fifth columns identify the timing and responsibility for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 2 This page intentionally left blank

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERRS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 3 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
Aesthetics
The SPERSS and SSWMP Projects would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics. No mitigation is required.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1: Minimize Disturbance to Farmland.

Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan. The following standard Dust Control Measures shall be implemented during construction to help prevent potential nuisances to nearby receptors due to fugitive dust and to reduce contributions to exceedances of the state ambient air quality standards for PM10, in accordance with MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines.
• Water all active construction areas as required with non-potable sources to the extent feasible; frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure and minimized to prevent wasteful use of water. • Prohibit grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph). • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
• Enclose, cover, or water daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Post a publicly visible sign that 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 MBARD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with MBARD rules.

During project
construction
Construction
contractor
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and MBARD
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BT-1a: Implement Construction Best Management Practices. The following best management practices shall be implemented during all identified phases of construction (i.e., pre-, during, and post-) to reduce impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species:

1. A qualified biologist must conduct an Employee Education Program for the construction crew prior to any construction activities. A qualified biologist must meet with the construction crew at the onset of construction at the site to educate the Prior to, during,
and after
project
construction
Qualified
biologist and
construction
contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction

City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
biologist

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECTS

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 4 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
construction crew on the following: 1) the appropriate access route(s) in and out of the construction area and review project boundaries; 2) how a biological monitor will examine the area and agree upon a method which would ensure the safety of the monitor during such activities, 3) the special-status species that may be present; 4) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort; 5) the general provisions and protections afforded by the USFWS and CDFW; and 6) the proper procedures if a special-status species is encountered within the site.

2. Trees and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used, to avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

3. Protective fencing shall be placed prior to and during construction to keep construction equipment and personnel from impacting vegetation outside of work limits. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

4. Following construction, disturbed areas shall be restored to pre-construction contours to the maximum extent possible and revegetated using locally-occurring native species and native erosion control seed mix, per the recommendations of a qualified biologist.

5. Grading, excavating, and other activities that involve substantial soil disturbance shall be planned and carried out in consultation with a qualified hydrologist, engineer, or erosion control specialist, and shall utilize standard erosion control techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation to native vegetation (pre-, during, and post-construction).

6. No firearms shall be allowed on the construction sites at any time.

7. All food-related and other trash shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the project area at least once a week during the construction period, or more often if trash is attracting avian or mammalian predators. Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract wildlife to the area.

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERRS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 5 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring

8. To protect against spills and fluids leaking from equipment, the project proponent shall require that the construction contractor maintains an on-site spill plan and on- site spill containment measures that can be easily accessed.

9. Refueling or maintaining vehicles and equipment should only occur within a specified staging area that is at least 100 feet from a waterbody (including riparian and wetland habitat) and that has sufficient management measures that will prevent fluids or other construction materials including water from being transported into waters of the state. Measures shall include confined concrete washout areas, straw wattles placed around stockpiled materials and plastic sheets to cover materials from becoming airborne or otherwise transported due to wind or rain into surface waters.

Mitigation Measure BT-1b: Implement Construction-Phase Monitoring. The project proponents shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor all ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., vegetation removal, grading, excavation, or similar activities) to protect any special-status species encountered. Any handling and relocation protocols of special-status wildlife species shall be determined in coordination with CDFW prior to any ground disturbing activities, and conducted by a qualified biologist with an appropriate scientific collection permit. After ground disturbing project activities are complete, the qualified biologist shall train an individual from the construction crew to act as the on-site construction biological monitor. The construction biological monitor shall be the contact for any special-status wildlife species encounters, shall conduct daily inspections of equipment and materials stored on site and any holes or trenches prior to the commencement of work, and shall ensure that all installed fencing stays in place throughout the construction period. The qualified biologist shall then conduct regularly scheduled and unscheduled visits to ensure the construction biological monitor is satisfactorily implementing all appropriate mitigation protocols. Both the qualified biologist and the construction biological monitor shall have the authority to stop and/or redirect project activities to ensure protection of resources and compliance with all environmental permits and conditions of the project. The qualified biologist and the construction monitor shall complete a daily log summarizing activities and environmental compliance throughout the duration of the project. The log shall also include any special-status wildlife species observed and relocated.

Prior to and
during project
construction
Qualified
biologist and
construction
contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
biologist

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECTS

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 6 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure BT-1c: Implement Non-Native, Invasive Species Controls. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce the introduction and spread of non-native, invasive species:

1. Any landscaping or replanting required for the project shall not use species listed as noxious by the California Department of Food and Agriculture

2. Bare and disturbed soil shall be landscaped with California Department of Food and Agriculture recommended seed mix or plantings from locally adopted species to preclude the invasion on noxious weeds in the Project Study Area.

3. Construction equipment shall be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds, before mobilizing to arrive at the construction site and before leaving the construction site.

4. All non-native, invasive plant species shall be removed from disturbed areas prior to replanting.

During project
construction
Construction
contractor
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works,
qualified
biologist, and
construction
biological
monitor
Mitigation Measure BT-1g: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Bats. To avoid and reduce impacts to special status bat species, the project proponents shall retain a qualified bat specialist or wildlife biologist to conduct site surveys during the reproductive season (May 1 through September 15) to characterize bat utilization of the component site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be determined by the biologist) prior to tree or building removal. Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or more of the following shall occur:
• If it is determined that bats are not present at the component site, no additional mitigation is required.
• If it is determined that bats are utilizing the component site and may be impacted by the project, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to any tree or building removal (or any other suitable roosting habitat) within 100 feet of construction limits. If, according to the bat specialist, no bats or bat signs are observed in the course of the pre-construction surveys, tree and building removal may proceed. If bats and/or bat signs are observed during the pre-construction surveys, the biologist shall determine if disturbance would jeopardize a maternity roost or another type of roost (i.e., foraging, day, or night). • If a single bat and/or only adult bats are roosting, removal of trees, buildings, or other suitable habitat may proceed after the bats have been safely excluded from Prior to project
construction
Qualified
biologist and
construction
contractor
Prior to
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
biologist

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERRS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 7 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
the roost. Exclusion techniques shall be determined by the biologist and would depend on the roost type.
• If an active maternity roost is detected, avoidance is preferred. Work in the vicinity of the roost (buffer to be determined by biologist) shall be postponed until the biologist monitoring the roost determines that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the roost. The monitor shall ensure that all bats have left the area of disturbance prior to initiation of pruning and/or removal of trees that would disturb the roost. If avoidance is not possible and a maternity roost must be disrupted, authorization from CDFW shall be required prior to removal of the roost.

Mitigation Measure BT-1k: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, including, but not limited to, whitetailed kite and California horned lark. Prior to the start of construction activities at each project component site, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for suitable nesting habitat within the component Project Study Area and within a suitable buffer area from the component Project Study Area. The qualified biologist shall determine the suitable buffer area based on the avian species with the potential to nest at the site. In areas where nesting habitat is present within the component project area or within the determined suitable buffer area, construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species shall be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season. Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31.

Alternatively, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the project proponents to conduct pre- construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species where nesting habitat was identified and within the suitable buffer area if construction commences between February 1 and September 15. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final construction plans.

If active raptor or other protected avian species nests are identified during the preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall notify the project proponents and an appropriate no- Prior to project
construction
and if found
establish and
comply with no-
disturbance
buffer
Qualified
biologist and
construction
contractor
Prior to
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
biologist

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECTS

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 8 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
disturbance buffer shall be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure BT-1q: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Red-Legged Frog. The following measures for avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to California Red- Legged Frog (CRLF) during construction of the Project components are those typically employed for construction activities that may result in short-term impacts to individuals and their habitat. The focus of these measures is on scheduling activities at certain times of year, keeping the disturbance footprint to a minimum, and monitoring. • The Cityshall annually submit the name(s) and credentials of biologists who would conduct activities specified in the following measures. No project construction activities at the component site would begin until the City receives confirmation from the USFWS that the biologist(s) is qualified to conduct the work. • A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the work site 48 hours prior to the onset of construction activities. If CRLF, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved biologist shall determine the closest appropriate relocation site. The approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move the CRLF, tadpoles or eggs from the work site before work activities begin. Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and moving of CRLF. • Before any construction activities begin on the project component site, a USFWS- approved biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the CRLF and its habitat, the importance of the CRLF and its habitat, general measures that are being implemented to conserve the CRLF as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which the project construction activities may be accomplished. Brochures, books and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.
• A USFWS-approved biologist shall be present at the work site until such time as all removal of CRLF, instruction of workers, and disturbance of habitat have been completed. After this time, the biologist shall designate a person to monitor onsite compliance with all minimization measures and any future staff training. The USFWS- approved biologist shall ensure that this individual receives training outlined in Prior to and
during project
construction
Qualified
biologist and
construction
contractor
Prior to
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
biologist

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERRS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 9 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure Bt-1a and in the identification of CRLF. The monitor and the USFWS-approved biologist shall have the authority to stop work if CRLF are in harm’s way.
• The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goal.

Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated, and these areas shall be outside of riparian and wetland areas to the extent practicable. • If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters (mm) to prevent CRLF from entering the pump system. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.

The Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force’s Fieldwork Code of Practice shall be followed to minimize the possible spread of chytrid fungus or other amphibian pathogens and parasites.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-2b: Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Human Remains. If archaeological resources or human remains are unexpectedly discovered during any construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (±160 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. The County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99 in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin.

During project
construction
Construction
contractor and if
needed,
qualified
archaeologist
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
archaeologist
Mitigation Measure CR-2c: Native American Notification. Because of their continuing interest in potential discoveries during construction, all listed Native American Contacts shall be notified of any and all discoveries of archaeological resources in the project area.

During project
construction
Construction
contractor and if
needed,
qualified
archaeologist
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
and qualified
archaeologist
Energy

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECTS

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 10 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure EN-1: Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan. Cityshall contract a qualified professional (i.e., construction planner/energy efficiency expert) to prepare a Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan that identifies the specific measures that City will implement as part of project construction to increase the efficient use of construction equipment. Such measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: procedures to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained at all times; a commitment to utilize existing electricity sources where feasible rather than portable diesel- powered generators; consistent compliance with idling restrictions of the state; and identification of procedures (including the use of routing plans for haul trips) that will be followed to ensure that all materials and debris hauling is conducted in a fuel efficient manner.

Prior to project
construction
Construction
contractor
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
Geology and Soils
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils. No mitigation is required.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality. No mitigation is required.

Land Use and Planning
Mitigation Measure LU-1: Minimize Disturbance to Farmland. To support the continued productivity of designated Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, the following provisions shall be included in construction contract specifications:
• Construction contractor(s) shall minimize the extent of the construction disturbance, including construction access and staging areas, in designated important farmland areas.
• Prior to the start of construction, the construction contractor(s) shall mark the limits of the construction area and ensure that no construction activities, parking, or staging occur beyond the construction limits.
• Upon completion of the active construction, the site shall be restored to pre- construction conditions.

During project
construction
Construction
contractor
During
project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
Mineral Resources
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to mineral resources. No mitigation is required.

Noise
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to noise. No mitigation is required.

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

SPERRS AND SSWMP P ROJECT S

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 11 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring

Population and Housing
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to population and housing. No mitigation is required.

Public Services
Mitigation Measure PS-3: Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. The construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a construction waste reduction and recycling plan identifying the types of construction debris the Project will generate and the manner in which those waste streams will be handled. In accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the plan shall emphasize source reduction measures, followed by recycling and composting methods, to ensure that construction and demolition waste generated by the project is managed consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. In accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code and local regulations, the plan shall specify that all trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils, and 50% of all other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, be diverted from landfill disposal. The plan shall be prepared in coordination with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District and be consistent with Monterey County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan. Upon project completion, City shall collect the receipts from the contractor(s) to document that the waste reduction, recycling, and diversion goals have been met.

Piro to, during,
and after
project
construction
Construction
contractor
Upon project
completion
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
Recreation
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to recreation. No mitigation is required.

Transportation
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Roadway Rehabilitation Program. Prior to commencing project construction, City shall detail the preconstruction condition of all local construction access and haul routes proposed for substantial use by project-related construction vehicles. The construction routes surveyed must be consistent with those identified in the construction traffic control and safety assurance plan developed under Mitigation Measure TR-2. After construction is completed, the same roads shall be surveyed again to determine whether excessive wear and tear or construction damage has occurred. Roads damaged by project- related construction vehicles shall be repaired to a structural condition equal to, or greater than, that which existed prior to construction activities.

Prior to project
construction
and after
project
construction
Construction
contractor
After project
construction
City of Salinas
Department of
Public Works
Tribal Cultural Resource
Refer to Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c.

Utilities and Service Systems

SPERSS AND SSWMP P ROJECTS

S ALINAS , C ALIFORNIA

M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
D ECEMBER 2023

C:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0292307\SPERSS_MMRP_20231221.docx «12/31/23» 12 Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility Timing
Responsibility
for Compliance
Monitoring
Refer to Mitigation Measure PS-3.

Wildfire
The SPERSS Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required.

Source: LSA 2023
MBARD = Montrey Bay Air Resources District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) = California Department of Fish and Wildlife CRLF = California red-legged frog

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-131, Version: 1
Professional Service Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services for Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School
Approve a Resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,979,618.22, from June 2, 2025 through June 30, 2029, subject to the availability of funds; and authorizing the use of Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project funds up to $1,979,618.22 for the PSA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Engineering Services for Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and accepting and authorizing the use of the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds totaling $1,556,000 as leveraging funds for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: APRIL 22, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-
HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

FOR HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOL PROJECT

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution:
1) Delegating authority to the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,979,618.22, from June 2, 2025 through June 30, 2029, subject to the availability of funds; and
2) Authorizing the use of Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project funds up to $1,979,618.22 for the PSA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Engineering Services for Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and 3) Accepting and authorizing the appropriation of the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds totaling $1,556,000 to the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 6, 2022, City Council adopted the Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan . At its meeting on May 16, 2023, City Council accepted an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant in the amount of $8,079,000 for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project. On February 11, 2025, staff released a Request for Proposal for Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project. Proposals were due on March 4, 2025, and only one consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., submitted a proposal. Based on evaluation of the submittal from the selection committee, staff recommends award of the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project to Kimley-Horn and Associates.

BACKGROUND:

Page | 2

On December 6, 2022, the City of Salinas adopted the Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan as a strategic planning document through Resolution No. 22533 (Attachment 1). Public input was the foundation of the process to create the Safe Routes to Schools Plan. Staff developed an outreach plan and sought input from community members to understand school transportation needs and barriers and refine the draft recommendations. Parent and student surveys, presentations at parent meetings, and walking audits with school staff all contributed input on the barriers to walking and biking to schools in Salinas and the types of improvements that community members would like to see.

According to the 2021 Citywide safe routes to schools survey, the top barriers to children walking and bicycling in Salinas are “driver behavior” and “traffic speed”. These concerns have been validated through school site audits, speed surveys and photos. The feedback from the parent community clearly expressed a need for routes with slower traffic or more space and protection from motorized vehicles. This means that on certain streets, bicycle lanes are not comfortable enough to encourage children and less confident riders to take the trip by bicycle instead of by car.

Harden Parkway and McKinnon St reet both currently have bicycle lanes and sidewalks but have safety issues that need to be addressed to encourage higher levels of bicycling and walking in Salinas.

Harden Parkway provides access to the Northridge Mall and Harden Ranch Plaza, major shopping and employment hubs on busy N orth Main Street, a 6-lane arterial street which runs north -south through the community. Just a 10 -minute bike ride to the south -side of the community is the Sherwood Park neighborhood. In combination with several ot her streets and paths, Harden Parkway and McKinnon Street provide one of the only routes for students and residents of the Sherwood Park neighborhood and Harden Plaza affordable housing complex to access Harden Middle School, higher education and the Northridge Mall while minimizing travel on dangerous North Main Street.

On June 15, 2022, the City in partnership with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) applied to the Active Transportation Grant Program to request funding for improvements identified in the Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan, including a 0.77-mile multi-use path with a road diet on Harden Parkway from El Dorado Drive to Regency Circle. The reconfiguration will transform a 4 -lane roadway to a 2 -lane roadway with a roundabout at McKinnon Street, 2 -way multiuse path separated by a planted stormwater swale, and accessible sidewalks. Connecting to Harden Parkway, the project includes safe routes to school improvements on McKinnon Street including protected bike lanes connecting the proposed multiuse path on Harden Parkway to newly installed bike facilities on E. Alvin Drive, high -visibility crosswalk in front of Harden Middle School and curb extensions along Westminster Drive connecting McKinnon Street to El Dorado Park. As part of this effort the City and TAMC also secured $1,548,000 of grant funding for outreach and education tasks to help encourage and promote safe walking and biking to school.

In December 2022, City staff was notified that it was awarded $8,079,000 of ATP Grant funds.

On May 16, 2023, City Council approved Resolution No. 22665 , authorizing the acceptance of ATP grant funds and appropriation to the newly CIP 9367 Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project. The City also, applied for the 2023 RSTP C ompetitive Grant for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School for a total request of $1,556,000 and in August 2023 the Page | 3
TAMC Board approved and the City was notified that it was awarded $398,097 (Attachment 3).

The $398,097 was awarded with the ass umption FHWA Repurposed Funds were approved.

Recently, the City received an update to these grant funds that the repurposed funds were allocated to another project which provided for the full RSTP grant funds of $1,556,000 be awarded to the City (Attachment 4).

On February 11, 2025, city staff released an RFP for Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project. The scope of work for this RFP, includes preliminary engineering studies, surveys and mapping, environmental studies and documentation, utility coordination, design plans, outreach , and optional construction support. The deadline to submit proposals was March 4, 2025, and the C ity received one proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. A selection committee c omprised of staff from the Public Works Department evaluated the proposal and found Kimley-Horn to be very competent. From the original proposal, there were modifications requested to a specific task on the scope of work which had minor effects on the fee.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). CEQA and NEPA documentation clearance will occur from tasks on the scope of work of the agreement, prior to construction.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

Yes

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This item supports the City Council’s goals of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability”, “Public Safety”, and “Youth and Seniors”.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Public Works Department and Finance Department manage the project accounting. The Public Works Department manages construction contract, inspection, and final acceptance of construction projects.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no direct cost to the General Fund. This Council action authorizes the use of the funds from CIP Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project (CIP 9367). City Council Resolution No. 22665, authorized the appropriation totaling $9,635,000 to CIP 9367, a transfer of $8,079,000 from the Special Const Fed & St Fund to the CIP Fund and a transfer of $1,556,000 matching funds from Measure X. The previous $1,556,000 matching funds from Measure X will not be replaced with RSTP grant funds.

Page | 4
Fund

Appropriation

Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)
2510
(Measure
X)
9367 Harden Parkway Path
SRTS
$44,965 $18,929.22 n/a 5/16.23,
22665
5201
(Special
Const
Assistance)
9367 Harden Parkway Path
SRTS
$404,689 $404,689 n/a 5/16.23,
22665
TBD (RSTP) TBD Harden Parkway Path
SRTS
TBD $1,556,000 n/a n/a

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1 Resolution No. 22533
Attachment 2 Resolution No. 22665
Attachment 3 TAMC Master Funding Agreement Exhibit A
Attachment 4 TAMC Master Funding Agreement Exhibit A Updated Attachment 5 Professional Service Agreement between the City of Salinas and Kimley -Horn and Associates Inc.

Attachment 6 Exhibit B – Scope and Fee

RESOLUTION NO. _______ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION TO: 1) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR A TOTAL COMPENSATION AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,979,618.22; AND 2) AUTHORIZE THE USE OF

HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT
(5800.50.9367) FUNDS UP TO $1,979,618.22 FOR THE PSA WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT; AND 3)

ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (RSTP) GRANT FUNDS TOTALING $1,556,000 AS

LEVERAGING FUNDS FOR THE HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the City Council in December 2022 approved by Resolution No. 22533 a Safe Routes to Schools Plan over a three-year process involving extensive community outreach and public engagement; and

WHEREAS, in partnership with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County the City submitted a n application to the Active Transportation Grant Program and successfully secured $8,079,000 in funding for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted an application to the 2023 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and city was notified in August 2023 that it was awarded and would receive $1,556,000 in grant funds; and

WHEREAS, on February 11, 2025 city staff released an RFP for Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project and received one proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. at the deadline of March 4, 2025; and

WHEREAS, after evaluating the proposal Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. was selected to enter into an agreement for the scope of work; and

WHEREAS, The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). CEQA and NEPA documentation clearance will occur from tasks on the scope of work of the agreement, prior to construction.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) between The City of Salinas and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for a total compensation amount not to exceed $1,979,618.22; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the use of Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project (5800.50.9367) funds up to $1,979,618.22 for the PSA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council accept and authorize the use of the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds totaling $1,556,000 as leveraging funds for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of May 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

_________________________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

1 RESOLUTION NO. 22533 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE SALINAS

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PLAN AS A STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENT

WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2019 , meeting the City Council authorized an agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County for the use of state grant funds for the development of a Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Traffic and Transportation Commission received updates during the December 12, 2019, March 12, 2020 and April 12, 2022 meetings; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Safe Routes to School Plan was presented to City Council on October 18, 2022, and the Council was requested to provide feedback prior to adoption; and

WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby approves a Resolution adopting the Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan as a strategic planning document.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Barrera, Cromeenes, Gonzalez, McShane, Osornio, Rocha and Mayor Craig

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

APPROVED:

________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11154038-5245-40D9-9BB3-2A1C3FDC6870

RESOLUTION NO. 22665 (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION TO: 1) AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,079,000; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CIP PROJECT, “HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT,” WITH
APPROPRIATIONS TOTALING $9,635,000, A TRANSFER OF $8,079,000 FROM THE SPECIAL CONST ASSIST – FED & ST FUND TO THE CIP FUND, PLUS A TRANSFER OF $1,556,000 MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE MEASURE X

TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY FUND TO THE CIP FUND AND A

CORRESPONDING REVENUE BUDGET FOR THE HARDEN PARKWAY PATH AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT; AND 3) AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL AGREEMENTS AND ANY REQUIRED

PAPERWORK WITH CALTRANS FOR THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT

PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the recently developed a Safe Routes to Schools Plan over a three-year process involving extensive community outreach and public engagement; and

WHEREAS, as part of the Safe Routes to Schools planning effort, the City implemented a pop-up demonstration project for Harden Middle School; and

WHEREAS, after the pop-up demonstration project, the team conducted a survey and found that the majority of the participating students and parents supported the project; and

WHEREAS, input received from the community helped form the final Salinas Safe Routes to Schools Plan adopted by City Council Resolution on December 6, 2022; and

WHEREAS, The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL authorizes the acceptance of Active Transportation Grant funds in the amount of $8,079,000; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorize the establishment of a new CIP project, “Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project,” with appropriations totaling $9,635,000, a transfer of $8,079,000 from the Special Const Assist – Fed & St Fund to the CIP fund and a corresponding revenue budget, plus a transfer of DocuSign Envelope ID: EBDB1DD4-031A-4215-9A9C-84CD6CF53667 $1,556,000 matching funds from the Measure X Transportation and Safety Fund to the CIP Fund for the Harden Parkway Path and Safe Routes to School Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves a Resolution to authorize the Public Works Director to execute all agreements and any required paperwork with Caltrans for the Active Transportation Grant Program.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Barrera, Gonzalez, McShane, Osornio, Rocha, Sandoval and Mayor Craig

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

APPROVED:

_________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

DocuSign Envelope ID: EBDB1DD4-031A-4215-9A9C-84CD6CF53667

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 1 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

AGREEMENT

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KIMLEY-
HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 2 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

Contents
RECITALS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 TERMS ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Scope of Service. ................................................................................................................. 4

2. Term; Completion Schedule. ............................................................................................... 4

3. Compensation. ..................................................................................................................... 4

4. Billing. ................................................................................................................................. 4

5. Meet & Confer. .................................................................................................................... 5

6. Additional Copies................................................................................................................. 5

7. Responsibility of Consultant. ............................................................................................... 5

8. Responsibility of City. ......................................................................................................... 5

9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. .................................................................................... 6

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. ................................................................................... 6

11. Insurance. ............................................................................................................................. 6

12. Access to Records. ............................................................................................................... 6

13. Non-Assignability. ............................................................................................................... 6

14. Changes to Scope of Work. ................................................................................................. 6

15. Ownership of Documents. ................................................................................................... 7

16. Termination. ......................................................................................................................... 7

17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. ................................................................ 8

18. Exhibits Incorporated. .......................................................................................................... 8

19. Independent Contractor. ....................................................................................................... 8

20. Integration and Entire Agreement. ....................................................................................... 8

21. Jurisdiction and Venue. ........................................................................................................ 8

22. Severability .......................................................................................................................... 9

23. Notices. ................................................................................................................................ 9

24. Nondiscrimination................................................................................................................ 9

25. Conflict of Interest. ............................................................................................................ 10

26. Headings. ........................................................................................................................... 10

27. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 10

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. ................................................................................................ 10

29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. ........................................................................ 10

30. Licenses.............................................................................................................................. 10

31. Counterparts. ...................................................................................................................... 10

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 3 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

32. Legal Representation. ........................................................................................................ 10

33. Joint Representation. .......................................................................................................... 11

34. Warranty of Authority........................................................................................................ 11

35. No Waiver of Rights. ......................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements .............................................................................................. 12 Exhibit B- Scope of Service .......................................................................................................... 15

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 4 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

This Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this ____ day of May, 2025, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, (hereinafter “Consultant”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she, or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:

TERMS

1. Scope of Service. The project contemplated and the scope of Consultant’s services are described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on June 2, 2025 and shall terminate on June 30, 2029, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties, and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation of as set forth in Exhibit B. The total amount of compensation to be paid under this Agreement shall not exceed one million, nine hundred seventy-nine thousand, six hundred eighteen dollars and twenty-two cents ($1,979,618.22).

4. Billing. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice.

Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:

(A) A brief description of services performed;
(B) The date the services were performed;
(C) The number of hours spent and by whom;
(D) A brief description of any costs incurred; and

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 5 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

(E) The Consultant’s signature.

Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.

City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. The City shall process undisputed portion immediately.

5. Meet & Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by the City to ensure timely and adequate performance of the Agreement.

6. Additional Copies. If City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material which Consultant is required to furnish as part of the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.

7. Responsibility of Consultant. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that the services to be provided and work to be performed under this Agreement shall be performed in a fully competent manner. By executing this Agreement, Consultant further agrees and represents to City that the Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide the City the services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted practices in this area to the profession to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the projects for which the services are rendered under this Agreement.

8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:

(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City.

(B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 6 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

(C) City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services.

City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.

(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.

9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the work to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the work performed.

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

Pursuant to the full language of California Civil Code §2782, design Consultant agrees to indemnify, including the cost to defend, City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of design Consultant and its employees or agents in the performance of services under this contract, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages arising from the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful acts of the City; and does not apply to any passive negligence of the City unless caused at least in part by the design Consultant. The City agrees that in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design Consultant exceed that professional’s proportionate percentage of fault.

This duty to indemnify shall not be waived or modified by contractual agreement or acts of the parties.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Exhibit A hereto.

12. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials including but not limited to calculation and survey notes relating to work performed for the City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours.

Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.

13. Non-Assignability. It is recognized by the parties hereto that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. This Agreement is personal to Consultant and shall not be assigned by it without express written approval of the City.

14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 7 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes.

Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the changed scope.

15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for the services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant.

16. Termination.

(A) City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:

(1) If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or

(2) For any reason whatsoever.

(B) Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:

(1) In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 8 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

(1) Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and

(2) Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.

(D) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.

(E) The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.

17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.

18. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference. In the event there is a conflict between any of the terms of this Agreement and any of the terms of any exhibit to the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall control the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.

19. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carrying out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant expressly warrants not to represent, at any time or in any manner, that Consultant is an employee or servant of the City.

20. Integration and Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing signed by both parties.

21. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.

Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the State of California, in the County of Monterey or in the appropriate federal court with jurisdiction over the matter.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 9 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

22. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

23. Notices.

(A) Written notices to the City hereunder shall, until further notice by City, be addressed to:

City Manager
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901

With a copy to:

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901

(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Attn: Frederik Venter
2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway, Suite K
Monterey, CA 93940
[email protected]

(C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice.

(D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.

24. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 10 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

25. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and declares that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, in any manner or degree which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable local, state or federal law. Consultant further declares that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) and Salinas City Code Chapter 2A that apply to Consultant as the result of Consultant’s performance of the work or services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

26. Headings. The section headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement.

27. Attorneys’ Fees. In case suit shall be brought to interpret or to enforce this Agreement, or because of the breach of any other covenant or provision herein contained, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the Court. City’s attorneys’ fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and Consultant expressly reserves the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.

30. Licenses. If a license of any kind, which term is intended to include evidence of registration, is required of Consultant, its representatives, agents or subcontractors by federal, state or local law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and that any applicable bond posted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.

32. Legal Representation. Each party affirms that it has been represented, if it so chose, by legal counsel of its own choosing regarding the preparation and the negotiation of this Agreement and the matters and claims set forth herein, and that each of them has read this Agreement and is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect. Neither party is relying on any statement of the other party outside the terms set forth in this Agreement as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 11 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

33. Joint Representation. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be applicable or invoked.

34. Warranty of Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement. Each party further represents and warrants that it has given any and all notices, and obtained any and all consents, powers, and authorities, necessary to permit it, and the persons entering into this Agreement for it, to enter into this Agreement.

35. No Waiver of Rights. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. The failure to provide notice of any breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.

Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. A waiver by the City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date first written above.

CITY OF SALINAS

____________________________
René Mendez, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney

CONSULTANT

___________________________________

By (Printed Name): ___________________
Its (Title): ___________________________

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 12 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements

Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. With respect to General Liability and Professional Liability, coverage should be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after Agreement completion.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(A) Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insuranc e Services Office Form (“ISO”) CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (B) Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering any auto, or if Consult ant has no owned autos, hired and non -owned, with limit s no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(C) Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(D) Professional Liability (also known as Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to the work being performed , with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Salinas requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85, or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 13 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this Agreement or the project described within this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Salinas for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared by Consultant to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, Consultant shall provide coverage to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the consultant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administrations, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the beginning of Agreement work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Dat e prior to the Agreement effective date, the Consultant mus t purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of Agreement work.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 14 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable insurance language effecting coverage required by this Agreement. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all sub-consultants and/or subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from such sub-consultants and/or subcontractors.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Consultant as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Consultant of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Consultant may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

Professional Services Agreement v. July 2024 Page 15 of 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

Exhibit B- Scope of Service and Fee

Prepared by:

City of

SALINAS

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the
Harden Parkway Path &
Safe Routes to School Project
Exhibit B - Scope of Services and Fee

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 9
Coordination with Caltrans and CTC
There are particular milestone and time constraints specific to ATP-funded projects, and utilizing a team well-versed in coordination with Caltrans and CTC is vital to completing the Project team. The Project is subject to the LAPM and must comply with all the requirements of ATP funding as well as federal funding for the construction phase. The Kimley-Horn team is not only familiar with, but also committed to successfully delivering this Project in accordance with LAPM processes as well as LAPG, with particular attention to Chapter 25, State Programs for Local Agency Projects.

LAPG sets forth funding parameters that must be adhered to, including the Timely Use of Funds provision. Compliance with the Timely Use of Funds provisions is crucial for Project success, and we have built CTC deadlines into our schedule. Should unforeseen circumstances arise as the result of third-party delay, the CTC may approve up to one extension per phase during the PA&ED, PS&E, Right-of-Way (R/W), and Construction (CON) phases, with the time extension dependent on the nature of the request. Kimley-Horn’s experience is that the CTC will grant extensions when well documented and verified that the local agency is not responsible for the delay. Furthermore, the extension granted must correspond to the number of months of justifiable delay, as the CTC will not automatically award the maximum time extension identified in LAPG.

E76 FOR CONSTRUCTION
The Kimley-Horn team has experience with not only CTC coordination as mentioned above, but also obtaining the E76 required for construction. During his years as a public agency engineer, our QC/QA manager, Hunter Young, PE, managed numerous federally funded projects through the construction phase serving as resident engineer (RE) on multiple occasions. He is also a graduate of the Caltrans Resident Engineers Academy. While construction of roadway improvements may be a couple of years away, at Kimley-Horn, we believe in beginning with the end in mind. For that reason, our team recently reviewed the Caltrans Post-Construction Review Checklist utilized by Caltrans Construction Oversight Engineers during their final “audit” of the Project. We will include relevant information into the Project technical specifications. For example, references to the City’s Quality Assurance Program (QAP), including, but not limited to, proper testing of materials permanently incorporated during construction, submittal of Certificates of Compliance, and receipt of all Buy America certificates, will be included. Additionally, the technical specifications will include required provisions on labor compliance/Equal Employment Opportunity documents, trainee programs for apprentices, disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) subcontractors, and environmental commitments/mitigation monitoring. By adhering to these requirements, our team will set the Project up for successful completion and submittal of the required E76 and associated forms.

5. SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENTATION We assume the project management task to occur over 24 months and conclude with the submittal of the Final PS&E for advertisement. Project management, coordination, and meetings during the construction phase are assumed to be included in Task 10: Bidding Support Services and Task 11: Design Support During Construction (DSDC).

Task 1.1. Project Administration
Kimley-Horn will supervise, coordinate, and monitor Project design activities. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City, including providing monthly Project status reports. We will develop and maintain a critical path method (CPM) Project schedule, updating monthly and as requested by the City.

Task 1.2. Coordination and Meetings
Kimley-Horn will participate in an initial kick-off meeting with the City to discuss the proposed Project approach, potential design challenges, schedule, and deadlines.

We assume up to 48 additional biweekly meetings with the City, with the remainder of coordination through email and telephone calls. Meetings will be summarized with meeting minutes, and we assume all meetings will be online format. If requested by the City, we can be available for limited in-person meetings, up to the estimated budget for this task.

Task 1.3. MST Coordination
Kimley-Horn will meet with MST to review the proposed improvements that directly impact their existing bus stops along the corridor and planned future stops or improvements. We assume coordination will be through telephone conference and email correspondence. This scope includes up to 24 hours for this task. Meetings will be summarized with meeting minutes, and we assume all meetings will be online format.

Task 1.4. QC/QA
Kimley-Horn will follow a structured QC/QA process that will be implemented throughout the life of the Project. An internal senior staff member will perform independent reviews ahead of the 60%, 90%, and Final/Bid PS&E submittals to review overall constructability and quality of our deliverables.

The project manager will maintain a log to record QC measures taken during the Project, including corrective actions taken.

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Monthly invoices (PDF)
Â Meeting notes (PDF)
Â Monthly schedule updates (PDF)
Â QC markups (as requested, PDF)

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 10
TASK 2: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES
Task 2.1. Stormwater and Drainage Analysis
SUBTASK 2.1.1. STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
Kimley-Horn will prepare a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) to meet requirements in the City’s NPDES-Stormwater Permit and related regulations such as the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. The Preliminary SCP will be based on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and will include an exhibit showing approved low impact development (LID) features. A Threshold Determination Spreadsheet is also required in this phase. Based on a cursory review, it is not confirmed that this Project requires hydromodification mitigation, and therefore this task does not address hydromodification. If research concludes that hydromodification management control is required, further modeling using the Salinas Hydrology Model (SalinasHM) or equivalent program to model selected best management practices (BMPs) will be provided as additional services.

SUBTASK 2.1.2. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
This task includes the preparation of one drainage memorandum to summarize the pre-Project and post-Project 10-year rainfall event runoff conditions along Harden Parkway as necessary to design improvements to the existing storm drain system along the roadway. This preliminary memorandum is limited to the Project area, and regional modeling beyond the Project limits is excluded. This scope does not include analysis of the downstream drainage systems to intercept the existing runoff from Harden Parkway nor any upsizing of these existing downstream drainage systems. Kimley-Horn’s drainage analysis will focus on roadway runoff and how to prevent ponding on the roadway.

The following items are included in this task:

Research of readily a
vailable drainage reports and related studies
Preparation of existing and proposed condition draina
ge maps
Drainage areas will be based upon Project sur
vey area and readily available topographic data. The offsite tributary area, which conveys flow into the Project area, will be approximate for the purpose of this analysis and noted if further survey and investigations are required.

Hydrology calcula
tions based upon rational method for the 10-year storm event following the Salinas Hydrology Model. Drainage areas will be limited to the proposed Project limits, and up to 30 areas are included based upon existing inlets. Computer modeling of the drainage system is excluded from this scope.

Hydraulic calculations f
or up to 30 existing inlet laterals and gutter spread based upon Manning’s Equations will be prepared utilizing flowmaster software and summarized in tabular format.

This task assumes downstream hydraulic grade line (HGL) inf ormation will be provided by the City or an agreed upon determination by the County and/or City.

Task 2.2. Urban Design Palate Concepts
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE CONCEPTS:

Kimley-Horn will develop up to three (3) different conceptual improvement themes that will identify the colors, materials, textures, layout, and general size of landscape and hardscape improvements. It is anticipated that this information will be conveyed through plans, elevations, sketches, and sample character imagery.

We assume up to one (1) round of revisions based on staff and/or stakeholder input. Additional revisions may be provided as additional services.

PREFERRED LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE CONCEPT:

Kimley-Horn will utilize input received from staff and stakeholders on the preliminary landscape and hardscape design concepts to create one (1) final preferred theme for final design direction prior to beginning the PS&E phase. The concept will illustrate final colors, materials, textures, layout, and general size of hardscape and landscape elements. It is anticipated that this information will be conveyed through plans, elevations, sketches, and sample character imagery. We assume up to one (1) round of revisions based on staff and/or stakeholder input. Additional revisions may be provided as additional services.

Task 2.3. Geotechnical Services
The Kimley-Horn team will provide geotechnical services. We will review pertinent reports of the site provided by the City, and participate in Project planning and coordination (up to two [2] meetings) and post-report design consultations (up to two [2] meetings at 2 hours each). A draft and final Geotechnical Report will be prepared and submitted to the City. The Kimley-Horn team will complete the following scope of work:

Site visit to mark coring locations f
or Utility Service Alert (USA)
Obtaining a City of Salinas Minor Encroachment permit and fees Field exploration consisting of advancing eight pa
vement cores (one approximately every 1,000 feet per direction). The cores will be advanced through the existing asphalt concrete (AC)/concrete and hand-excavated through any existing asphalt base to the underlying subgrade. The location of the cores will be chosen to identify the prominent pavement sections and significant changes in the pavement section based on surface observations. The subgrade will be identified, and sampled for laboratory testing. The maximum depth of the pavement cores is 15 inches into the existing hot mix asphalt (HMA)/concrete with a total depth of 2 feet.

Traffic control consisting of a two-person traffic control with ar row board to route traffic around the coring rig using California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) traffic control pattern 6C-1 modified for mobile operations Labora
tory testing of selected samples considered representative of site conditions, in order to ascertain or derive relevant engineering properties including:
• Moisture/density
• Soil classification
• Expansion potential
• R-value (two [2] each) includes sample collection and drop-off a t
outside laboratory
• Engineering anal
ysis of collected data

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 11
Preparation of a Geotechnical Report, with design of new pavement sections including recycling options, maintenance options, overlays where applicable, table of existing pa
vement section thicknesses, description of existing pavement conditions, earthwork criteria, and photo documentation New pavement sections and FDR options will be designed f or 15 to 20 years based on the Caltrans design method and R-values. Rigid pavement sections will be designed for 30 to 50 years based on the Caltrans design method and R-values. Overlay and other maintenance options such as mill-and-fill, cold in-place recycling (CIR), and seal coats will be provided where pavement conditions allow based on our team’s surface observations. The pavement life given for overlay and maintenance options will be an estimate based on our team’s experience.

Task 2.4. Pavement Assessment
Kimley-Horn will conduct a Project-level pavement condition assessment to evaluate existing pavement conditions and identify appropriate roadway maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. Pavement conditions will be mapped geospatially and integrated into the decision-making process. Coupled with geotechnical and traffic information, the pavement condition assessment will allow Kimley-Horn to value-engineer a pavement solution that is practical, cost-effective, and sustainable. This scope assumes up to 50 hours for this task.

Task 2.5. Field Visits
This task includes data gathering and field visits to support preliminary engineering and final design, geotechnical analysis, drainage analysis, determination and preparation of right-of-way information, and utility coordination. We assume up to eight (8) field visits with up to three (3) team members each for this task.

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Geotechnical Report (one [1] hard copy
, PDF)
Â Pavement Condition
Assessment Memorandum (one [1] hard copy, PDF)
Â Stormwater Control Plan (one [1] hard cop
y, PDF)
Â Hydraulics and Hydrology Memorandum (one [1] hard cop y, PDF)
Â Draft and Final Concept Landscape and Hardsca
pe Board (one [1] 24”x36” hard copy board of final concept, PDF) TASK 3: SURVEYS AND MAPPING
Task 3.1. Topographic Survey
The Kimley-Horn team will provide 1”=20’ aerial mapping with 1’ contours of the area shown on the attached exhibit, to be supplemented with ground based surveying, record right-of-way information, and record utility data.

SUBTASK 3.1.1
We will coordinate survey tasks with the City and schedule resources.

SUBTASK 3.1.2
The Kimley-Horn team will establish local survey control and tie to a vertical datum and horizontal coordinate system using global positioning system (GPS) methods.

Surveyed elevations will be relative to the NAVD88 vertical datum unless otherwise specified by the City prior to commencing work. We will establish and survey approximately 18 aerial mapping targets surrounding the mapping area for aerial mapping control purposes, together with additional control points as deemed necessary for supplemental ground-based surveying. We will research and review recorded maps in the vicinity, plot the record right-of-way boundaries in CAD, and recover and survey adequate existing boundary monuments to align the record right-of-way boundaries to the topographic mapping. (Note: this will not constitute a boundary survey.)
SUBTASK 3.1.3
The Kimley-Horn team will perform a ground-based supplemental survey along the mapped alignments. The survey will include any observed hardscape improvements obscured by tree canopy or otherwise not compiled in the aerial mapping. Additionally, utility structures (manhole and valve covers, utility vaults, and cabinets) compiled in the aerial mapping will be inspected from the ground to identify the utility types if possible. Trunk locations for any trees with trunks greater than 6” in diameter at breast height within the mapping area will also be surveyed as part of the supplemental survey efforts. This task additionally includes ground-based surveying at 12 curb returns along Westminster Drive.

SUBTASK 3.1.4
Where safely practicable, we will open sanitary sewer or storm drain manholes within the survey area, measure invert depths, and note pipe sizes and directions.

SUBTASK 3.1.5
The Kimley-Horn team will request utility maps from known utility providers including Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and AT&T. We will plot the presumed locations of underground utilities based on surveyed surface evidence reconciled with utility maps.

SUBTASK 3.1.6
The Kimley-Horn team will prepare a topographic map of the surveyed property incorporating the aerial mapping and all additional surveyed features. The topographic map will show 1-foot contours and overlaid record right-of-way boundaries drafted at a scale of 1”=20’. We will provide the topographic mapping to the City as a CAD drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3-D 2018 .dwg format.

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 12
Task 3.2. Monument Preservation Survey
SUBTASK 3.2.1
The Kimley-Horn team will research existing recorded maps to identify survey monuments of record that could be impacted by construction of the proposed improvements.

SUBTASK 3.2.2
The Kimley-Horn team will perform a field survey to document the locations of any threatened survey monuments and set reference marks outside the expected construction limits from which any destroyed monuments could be reestablished.

SUBTASK 3.2.3
We will prepare a Record of Survey map depicting the relative positions of all surveyed monuments and reference marks and process the map through the County of Monterey, respond to County plan check comments, and provide a mylar copy for recordation.

Exclusions
The following work is specifically excluded from the Surveyor’s Scope of Services:

1. Boundary surve
ying and preparation of a Record of Survey or other recorded map

2. Preparation of legal descriptions or plats f
or easement acquisitions, property transfers, or any other purposes

3. Determination of any pipe sizes or invert eleva
tions that are not visible, discernable, or directly measurable from ground level looking down the manholes

4. Utility surveys of underg
round facilities, including electronic sensor detection or physical potholing

5. Traffic control: an
y surveying that would require lane closures or third-party traffic control to safely accomplish

6. Locating or surve
ying of additional manholes outside the defined survey limits (e.g., upstream and downstream manholes)

7. Design services

8. Changes in scope of the survey work,
or any work not specifically included in Task 3: Surveys and Mapping Please note that upon your request, the Kimley-Horn team may be able to provide some of the above services at an additional cost.

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Topogra
phic Survey and Right-of-Way AutoCAD file (if requested) TASK 4: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND DOCUMENTATION
This scope of work for environmental documentation is consistent with Federal Highway Program Guidelines, LAPM, LAPG, and NEPA. NEPA is required due to core federal funding for the Project.

Task 4.1. Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form and Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map Environmental issues that may require further detailed study will be documented in the PES. Kimley-Horn will complete a PES Form and first submittal to the City for review. After addressing City comments, Kimley-Horn will submit the PES to Caltrans for their review and approval. Kimley-Horn staff has evaluated the anticipated Project concepts, existing Project site conditions, surrounding vicinity, and publicly available databases with information commonly used to complete the PES Form.

Based on this review and experience on similar projects, Kimley-Horn anticipates that the evaluation of environmental resources can be addressed within the PES Form, and additional technical studies will not be required but have been included as Optional Tasks.

While we do not anticipate that additional technical studies will be required, the final decision will be made by Caltrans. This is particularly true regarding cultural resources. Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS) will review the PES form and APE Map to determine the Project’s potential to affect both Archaeology and Historic Architecture (as applicable). It is anticipated that the PQS will find that a Screened Undertaking Memorandum will be sufficient for the Project, and no additional evaluation will be required. The Screened Undertaking Memorandum would be prepared by Caltrans PQS.

This scope also assumes Caltrans will prepare the NEPA Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Section 23 USC 326, 23 CFR 771 activity (c)(23). We will also prepare a Draft Environmental Commitments Record (ECR), if necessary, which will be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. Should any of the studies identify the need to prepare the Environmental Assessment, a separate scope and fee will be provided to the City to complete that effort.

Task 4.2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documentation Kimley-Horn will complete a CEQA Categorical Exemption and supporting memorandum to obtain environmental clearance for the Project. This scope anticipates that the Project would have no impacts on the environment, and it would qualify for a Categorical Exemption under State CEQA Guideline Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities. This Section applies to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities for the purpose of public safety, and other alterations such as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes.

Kimley-Horn believes that use of a Categorical Exemption would avoid the need to prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or other more involved CEQA document.

Removed Task 4
SUBTASK 3.1.3
The Kimley-Horn team will perform a ground-based supplemental survey along the mapped alignments. The survey will include any observed hardscape improvements obscured by tree canopy or otherwise not compiled in the aerial mapping. Additionally, utility structures (manhole and valve covers, utility vaults, and cabinets) compiled in the aerial mapping will be inspected from the ground to identify the utility types if possible. Trunk locations for any trees with trunks greater than 6” in diameter at breast height within the mapping area will also be surveyed as part of the supplemental survey efforts. This task additionally includes ground-based surveying at 12 curb returns along Westminster Drive.

SUBTASK 3.1.4
Where safely practicable, we will open sanitary sewer or storm drain manholes within the survey area, measure invert depths, and note pipe sizes and directions.

SUBTASK 3.1.5
The Kimley-Horn team will request utility maps from known utility providers including Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and AT&T.

We will plot the presumed locations of underground utilities based on surveyed surface evidence reconciled with utility maps.

We will provide the topographic mapping to the City as a CAD drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3-D 2018 .dwg format.

Task 3.2. Monument Preservation Survey
SUBTASK 3.2.1
The Kimley-Horn team will research existing recorded maps to identify survey monuments of record that could be impacted by construction of the proposed improvements.

Exclusions:

1. The following work is specifically excluded from the Surveyor’s Scope of Services:

2. Boundary surveying and preparation of a Record of Survey or other recorded map

3. Preparation of legal descriptions or plats for easement acquisitions, property transfers, or any other purposes

4. Determination of any pipe sizes or invert elevations that are not visible, discernable, or directly measurable from ground level looking down the manholes

5. Utility surveys of underground facilities, including electronic sensor detection or physical potholing

6. Traffic control: any surveying that would require lane closures or third-party traffic control to safely accomplish

7. Locating or surveying of additional manholes outside the defined survey limits (e.g., upstream and downstream manholes)

8. Design services

9. Changes in scope of the survey work, or any work not specifically included in Task 3: Surveys and Mapping Please note that upon your request, the Kimley-Horn team may be able to provide some of the above services at an additional cost.

TASK DELIVERABLES
• Topographic Survey and Right-of-Way AutoCAD file (if requested) TASK 4: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND DOCUMENTATION
This scope of work for environmental studies and documentation is consistent with Federal Highway Program Guidelines, LAPM, LAPG, and NEPA. NEPA is required due to core federal funding for the Project.

Updated/Revised Task 4
Task 4.1. Technical Study Work Program
Kimley-Horn will complete the requested technical documentation per the signed Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) approved by Caltrans on December 3,2024. Per Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS) review of the signed PES form, this scope also includes an Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map and an Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), including Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) to determine the Project’s potential to affect both Archaeological resources and Historic Architecture.

Kimley-Horn will prepare the technical documentation listed below:

Traffic Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a traffic memorandum as requested by Caltrans. The memorandum will include a brief project description, discussion of the affected environment (existing site and surrounding conditions), temporary and permanent impacts, and avoidance and minimization measures if necessary. This scope of work excludes any traffic counts or Level of Service analysis for intersections or roadway segments. Should operational traffic analysis be required, Kimley-Horn can accommodate this as an additional service. Kimley- Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum. Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Noise Technical Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a construction noise memorandum per request of Caltrans. The memorandum will include a brief project description, discussion of the affected environment (existing site and surrounding conditions), potential noise impacts from construction, and avoidance and minimization measures if necessary. This scope of work excludes any onsite noise measurements or noise modeling analysis. Should noise modeling be required, Kimley-Horn can accommodate this as an additional service. Kimley-Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum. Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a hazardous materials technical memorandum per request of Caltrans. The memorandum will include a brief project description, affected environment (existing site and surrounding conditions), discussion of applicable sites listed on the DTSC Envirostor database or California State Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB) Geotracker list, and avoidance and minimization measures if necessary. This scope of work does not include the preparation of an Initial Site Assessment or any soil testing. Kimley- Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum. Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Section 4(f) Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a Section 4(f) memorandum per request of Caltrans. Caltrans indicated the finding would be di minimize, which refers to minor impacts in which extensive environmental review or mitigation is not needed. The memorandum will include a brief project description, discussion of the affected environment (existing site and surrounding conditions) including existing recreational resources and discuss that any temporary and/or permanent impacts would be minor and that no avoidance or minimization measures would be necessary. Kimley-Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum.

Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Visual Resources Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a visual resources memorandum per request of Caltrans. The memorandum will include a brief project description, discussion of the affected environment (existing aesthetics of the site and surrounding conditions), temporary and/or permanent impacts, and avoidance and minimization measures if necessary. This scope of work does not include the preparation of any visual simulations or renderings. Should visual simulations be required, Kimley-Horn can provide those as an additional cost.

Kimley-Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum. Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Land Use Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a land use memorandum per request of Caltrans. The memorandum will include a brief project description, discussion of the affected environment (existing site and property ownership), potential for the project to require temporary and/or permanent construction easements of property acquisitions, and avoidance and minimization measures if necessary. This scope of work assumes that project will not result in any permanent loss of existing parking, take of private property such that a residence or business would be adversely affected or require relocation. Kimley-Horn assumes one round of consolidated City comments on the memorandum. Kimley-Horn will incorporate revisions, submit to the City for final approval and then submit to Caltrans.

Cultural Resources Documentation
Area of Potential Effect
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) will coordinate with the City, Caltrans, project cultural resources staff, and project engineering staff to develop an Area of Potential Effect (APE) Map and APE Description. The map will be prepared pursuant to Caltrans guidelines. This scope includes up to two updates to the APE Map based upon Caltrans comments. For the purposes of this scope, the APE is generally defined as approximately 1.4 linear miles on Harden Parkway and McKinnon Street.

Archaeological Survey Report
Kimley-Horn will prepare an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) for the proposed undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The report will be completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines and formats. All efforts will be completed by, or under the supervision of, a cultural resource professional that meets the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Tasks will include:

Research: Kimley-Horn will conduct a cultural resources records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to determine if any previously recorded cultural resources are located within the APE or ½ mile buffer. Staff will research geomorphology and land use history through applicable databases, historic aerials, and topographic maps. Staff will also review applicable literature, repositories and databases for additional research of the cultural sensitivity of the APE.

Outreach: Staff will request a tribal consultation list and records search of Sacred Lands Files (SLF) through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the APE. Staff will contact the Native American Tribes listed on the NAHC’s consultation list to request any information about cultural resources or sacred sites in or near the APE. Outreach will include one initial correspondence and up to one additional follow-up correspondence to the Tribes on the contact list. Staff will also contact up to two historical organizations or societies as part the outreach effort for the ASR. Any additional outreach effort required by Caltrans will require an adjusted scope and fee.

Field Survey: Staff will conduct a pedestrian survey of the entirety of the APE. Survey methods will be non-collective, and all identified archaeological resources will be recorded utilizing CA DPR 523 series forms.

Report: Upon conclusion of coordination, research, outreach, and field survey efforts, Kimley-Horn will produce an ASR that follows Caltrans formats and guidelines. The ASR will include a summary of the records search results, Native American outreach, brief historic and ethnographic background sections, description of field methodology, results of the survey, and necessary maps. This scope includes up to two updates to the ASR based upon Caltrans comments.

Exclusions:
- Extended Phase I archaeological testing
- Phase II excavation

Historic Resources Evaluation Report
Kimley-Horn will prepare a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) for the proposed undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA. The report will be completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines and formats. All efforts will be completed by, or under the supervision of, a cultural resource professional that meets the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Tasks will include:

Research: Kimley-Horn will utilize the research results from the ASR. Kimley-Horn will conduct additional research of the built environment to identify any historic-age built environment resources in the APE (e.g., reviewing property records). Kimley-Horn will an additional review of scholarly literature to develop the Historical Overview section of the HRER.

Field Survey: Kimley-Horn assumes that the survey for the HRER will be conducted concurrently with the survey for the ASR. All identified historic resources will be recorded utilizing CA DPR 523 series forms. This scope also accounts for the evaluation of recorded historic resources for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Report: Kimley-Horn will produce an HRER that follows Caltrans formats and guidelines. The HRER will include a summary of the research results, historical overview, results of the survey, description of historic resources, evaluations, and necessary maps. This scope includes up to two updates to the HRER based upon Caltrans comments.

Historic Property Survey Report
Upon completion of the APE, ASR, and HRER, Kimley-Horn will prepare a short-format Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) form following Caltrans formats and guidelines. The report will outline the findings made for and within the ASR and HRER. The document also provides evidence of coordination with Native American groups, local government, and other interested persons and organizations. The final drafts of the APE, ASR, and HRER will be attached as appendices.

Exclusions:
- Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), - Support of formal government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes. All outreach to Tribes outlined in the scope is for the purposes of gathering information for the report and does not constitute consultation required under AB52 (CEQA, as amended) or Section 106 of the NHPA,
- Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan.
- Finding of Effect
- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Action Plan NEPA Documentation
This scope also assumes Caltrans will prepare the NEPA Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Section 23 USC 326, 23 CFR 771 activity (c)(23). Kimley-Horn will prepare a Draft Environmental Commitments Record (ECR), if necessary, which will be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. Should any of the studies identify the need to prepare the Environmental Assessment, a separate scope and fee will be provided to the City to complete that effort.

Task 4.2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documentation Kimley-Horn will complete a CEQA Categorical Exemption and supporting memorandum to obtain environmental clearance for the Project.

This scope anticipates that the Project would have no impacts on the environment, and it would qualify for a Categorical Exemption under State CEQA Guideline Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities. This Section applies to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities for the purpose of public safety, and other alterations such as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes.

This scope assumes that a Categorical Exemption will be sufficient for CEQA approval and negate the need to prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

TASK 5: UTILITY COORDINATION
The Kimley-Horn team will coordinate with utility owners whose facilities may be directly impacted by proposed Project improvements to clear the Project via an approved Right-of-Way Certification (LAPM Exhibit 13-B).

Task 5.1. Utility Location and Facility Mapping
Kimley-Horn will request mapping of overhead and underground utilities (i.e., ‘A’ Letter) from utility owners as specified by the City. Utility- furnished mapping will be shown in the Project plans. Utility design is not included in this scope of work, but could be provided for additional scope and fee if requested by the City. ‘A’ Letters will be submitted to utility owners as specified by the City, which are anticipated to include: AT&T, PG&E, Alco Water Service, California Water Service, and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority.

Task 5.2. Utility Potholing
Due to the uncertainty of the need for potholing, we have included a budget for 50 pothole locations. Based on the recommended pothole locations identified in the PA&ED phase, a final budget and scope of potholing services will be prepared. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City on the final scope and budget prior to commencing potholing services. 2M Engineering will complete all potholing scope tasks as described below.

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 13
Task 4.3. Technical Study Work Program (Optional Task)
Kimley-Horn does not anticipate that additional technical reports will be required for the Project. If, however, after review of the PES form, Caltrans does require additional technical reports, we are ready to prepare technical studies in conformance with NEPA, pertinent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations, Caltrans’ Environmental Handbook, and CEQA. If this task is required, we will coordinate with Caltrans staff to formalize the specific content and format requirements for each study. We will work with the City to provide a subsequent scope and fee at our then-hourly rates for preparation any such documentation.

HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT (HPSR) AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT (ASR) The Kimley-Horn team would provide a complete scope for preparation of an HPSR and ASR should it be requested by the PQS. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the Project site, past use as agricultural land, post-1985 development, and minimal ground disturbance required for the Project, it is not anticipated that these services would be required. However, if requested by Caltrans, the HPSR and ASR would document the methods and results of a cultural resources investigation, including the on-site survey and records search in a formal report.

VISUAL ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM
The Project occurs within a highly urbanized environment and would be designed to be consistent with the existing visual environment and community sensitivity to the Project is anticipated to be low. To make sure impacts to the visual environment fall within appropriate Caltrans guidelines, Kimley-Horn will prepare the Caltrans’ Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level. While we do not anticipate the need for additional documentation beyond that contained in the PES form, Caltrans may request a memorandum briefly discussing the existing visual setting, sensitive receptors, and analysis of changes to the visual environment as compared to baseline conditions.

Task 5.1. Utility Location and Facility Mapping
Kimley-Horn will request mapping of overhead and underground utilities (i.e., ‘A’ Letter) from utility owners as specified by the City. Utility-furnished mapping will be shown in the Project plans. Utility design is not included in this scope of work, but could be provided for additional scope and fee if requested by the City. ‘A’ Letters will be submitted to utility owners as specified by the City, which are anticipated to include: AT&T, PG&E, Alco Water Service, California Water Service, and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority.

This scope includes and is limited to the following:

Mobilization
Traffic control plans
Traffic control (10 da
ys)
Potholing
• 2-man Hydrovac Crew
• Backfill with sand and Class II AB
• Dump fees
• AC Cold Patch
Permits and fees (if needed)
Task 5.2.A. Additional Utility Potholing (Optional Task) Per the RFP , we have included an optional task for an additional 25 pothole locations. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City on the final scope and budget prior to commencing additional potholing services.

Task 5.3. Utility Coordination
Upon completion of the 65% PS&E submittal and following positive utility locations by means of potholing, Kimley-Horn will coordinate with utility owners whose facilities may be directly impacted by proposed Project improvements by submitting written notification (i.e., ‘B’ Letter). We will submit a conflict map and request a claim letter with determination of liability for who is financially responsible for the utility work. We assume up to one (1) field meeting with each utility owner to review and verify impacts to their facilities.

Our team will then prepare draft utility packages, which will require Caltrans review and approval by the District Utility Coordinator since federal funding is involved.

The utility packages will consist of the following documents:

Notice to Owner (LAPM Exhibit 14-D)
Report of Investigation (LAPM Exhibit 14-E)
Utility Claim Letter
Engineer’
s Cost Estimate for the Utility Work
FHWA
Specific Authorization/Approval of Utility Agreement (LAPM Exhibit 14-C) Utility Ag
reement (LAPM Exhibit 14-F)

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 14
Kimley-Horn will provide communication with utility owners to seek resolution to impacted facilities with a relocation plan by their respective owner. Once the City and utility owners agree upon liability and Caltrans has approved the draft utility packages, Kimley-Horn will issue the final utility notifications (i.e., ‘C’ Letters) in the form of the Notice to Owner (LAPM Exhibit 14-D). We assume that each utility company will be responsible for relocating their facilities to meet the Project schedule.

Upon issuance of the ‘C’ Letters, the Kimley-Horn team will complete the utility section of the Right-of-Way Certification (LAPM Exhibit 13-B).

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Utility Record Maps and Base Ma
p AutoCAD file (if requested)
Â Potholing Results
Â Utility coordination
‘A,’ ’B,’ and ‘C’ Letters with supporting utility packages TASK 6: RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DETERMINATION
Kimley-Horn will prepare Request for Authorization (RFA) to advance the Project to the Right-of-Way Phase using procedures outlined in the LAPM under Task 9:

Coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance. We assume no right-of-way impact requiring acquisition, appraisals, or formal temporary construction easements (TCEs) will be required for the Project and therefore excludes any right-of-way coordination under this task. We assume temporary construction access to install the sidewalks adjacent to the private properties will be through property owner coordination and letter agreements.

TASK 7: DESIGN
Task 7.1. Concept Refinement
Kimley-Horn will refine the previously developed conceptual layouts included in the ATP grant application. During concept refinement, options and trade-offs typically considered are variations on the roundabouts’ inscribed circle diameter and central island, location of the roundabout, and variations in the approach and departure geometry. Kimley-Horn will evaluate up to three (3) alternatives including different cross section alternatives for Harden Parkway between Main Street and El Dorado Drive. Colored, 2-D concept renderings will depict critical roundabout features and geometric design elements as well as preliminary layouts for the Harden Parkway and McKinnon Street corridors. In addition, the layouts will include color-coded areas identifying landscape opportunities and potential sight line constraints based on estimated sight lines. Project constraints and right-of-way will be identified.

Key features evaluated during this phase typically include:

Size and location of rounda
bout relative to right-of-way and
geometric constraints
Potential interim phasing strateg
ies to minimize future construction costs
Approach and departure alignment
Local access impacts and circulation
Design speed, design vehicle,
and sight line considerations (Calculations
will not be conducted at this phase of concept refinement. Design check calculations will be completed with Task 7.2. 30% Design/GAD.) Tra
vel paths for bicyclists and pedestrians
Continuity for pedestrian tra
vel and access to transit facilities
It is assumed that constraints at the Project location, including planned developments, will be identified by the City and provided to Kimley-Horn prior to development of the refined Project concepts. This scope assumes development of one draft concept layout for review by the City. Kimley-Horn will incorporate one (1) set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments into the final concept layout.

Task 7.2. 30% Design/GAD

GEOMETRIC APPROVAL (HORIZONTAL)
This task includes the preparation of preliminary engineering drawings and design check calculations to obtain geometric approval of the refined concept developed under Task 7.1. Concept Refinement. Preliminary engineering plans are assumed to extend from N. Main Street to El Dorado Drive along Harden Parkway, from Harden Parkway to E. Alvin Drive along McKinnon Street, and along Westminster Street at the intersections with Tynan Way, Placer Way, Derby Way, Cambridge Court, Hampton Street, and Devonshire Way.

Preliminary engineering drawings will be prepared to identify the horizontal design limits of critical geometric elements such as curb geometry, lane widths, channelization, lane transitions, pavement markings, sightlines, and conform conditions to either the existing street infrastructure or proposed typical street section.

The functional area of the roundabout intersection will be defined, and typical sections of each leg, including the roundabout circulatory roadway and central island will be prepared.

We assume the roundabout will be constructed as a single-lane roundabout.

Design checks specific to vehicles navigating roundabout intersections will be calculated and documented in a technical memorandum. Roundabout curb geometry and lane markings will be adjusted to achieve target design values for estimated speeds, design vehicles, and sight lines. If site conditions or other constraints require a deviation from guidance described in NCHRP Report 1043, the deviation will be identified in the technical memorandum along with a description why the deviation is being requested.

The following design checks will be evaluated for vehicles:

Fastest path estima
tion for R1 through R5
Swept path and tire tracking f
or design vehicles (assume up to two [2]
design vehicles)
Intersection angle of visibility
Intersection Sight Distance (Assume tc=5.0 seconds)
Stopping Sight Distance

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 15
The design checks and roundabout operations will be summarized and documented in a Roundabout Performance Memorandum that will be submitted to the City with the 30% Design/GAD.

GEOMETRIC APPROVAL (VERTICAL)
Based on the approved horizontal geometry, centerline and curb profiles will be generated to a level sufficient to identify estimated grading of the roadway finished surface and to identify drainage patterns. A preliminary contour plan of the finished surface will be prepared as a design check for drainage, right-of-way, sight line, and driver comfort.

GEOMETRIC APPROVAL DRAWINGS
We assume the specifications will not be prepared at this level. We will prepare an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) for the 30% Design improvements.

Kimley-Horn will submit the GAD and design checks to the City for review. Following receipt of one (1) set of consolidated, non-conflicting comments, Kimley-Horn will incorporate City comments into the final GAD, at which time Kimley-Horn will consider the roundabout geometrically approved. After approval, any requests or directions to change the horizontal curb geometry within the functional area of the roundabout will be considered out-of-scope work.

Task 7.3. 60% PS&E
Based on comments received on the 30% Design and roll plots, the 60% Design will be developed. We anticipate the plans will include the sheets below with limited details and vertical design informa
tion. The construction detail sheets for the proposed drainage improvements will provide limited vertical design information.

Proposed drainage horizontal layout (as needed) will be provided at this design level.

We assume the specifications will not be prepared at this level. We will prepare an OPCC for the proposed improvements.

ASSUMED PS&E PLAN SHEETS (60%, 90%, AND FINAL)
Title sheet (1)
General notes (1)
Typical sections (4)
Horizontal control (4)
Demolition plans (4)
Layout plans (8)
Roundabout Profiles (4)
Construction details (12)
Utility plans (8)
Drainage plan and profiles (12)
Signing and striping plans (4)
Electrical plans and details (4)
Urban Design plans (8)
Planting and irrigation plans and details (8)
T
otal Estimated Sheets: 82

We assume the Contractor will be responsible for stage construction and traffic handling plans, and as such, these sheets are not included in our scope of work.

Plans and specifications will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), City Improvement Standards, Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), and MUTCD.

Task 7.4. 90% PS&E
Based on one (1) set of non-conflicting City review comments with only minor changes to the plans and design, Kimle y-Horn will advance the design and plans to the 90% Design level. Kimley-Horn will prepare a response-to-comments matrix for City comments stemming from the 60% review. Significant design or plan changes will be considered additional scope and can be performed for additional fee.

Kimle
y-Horn will perform a street lighting analysis to determine appropriate lighting levels and locations of proposed and existing street lighting. Street light plans, specifications, and estimates will be included in the PS&E package.

Technical specifications will be developed at this level according to the Caltrans 2024 format. The City will prepare the front-end boilerplate specification, including incorporating Project-specific information (Project name, notice to contractors, estimate, etc). Kimley-Horn will review the front-end boilerplate specifications and coordinate potential modifications with the City prior to compiling the final Project specifications. Technical specifications will be developed using Caltrans special provisions and any City-provided technical specifications. All proposed changes to special provisions will be tracked at the 90% level. Changes will be tracked in the specifications up until the Final PS&E.

Task 7.5. Final/Bid PS&E
Based on one (1) set of non-conflicting City review comments with only minor changes to the plans, Kimley-Horn will advance the design and plans to the Final/Bid Design level. Significant design or plan changes will be considered additional scope and can be performed for additional fee.

All tracked changes in the technical specifications will be accepted, and a clean version will be provided. Final technical specifications will be provided to the City, who will merge them, along with the front-end boilerplate, into the overall final Project specifications.

To comply with ATP Project Reporting, traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian counts must be collected no more than 6 months in advance of the construction contract award or the beginning of the construction phase, and after construction is complete. Kimley-Horn will provide the raw count data to the City. Analysis or evaluation of the data is not included in this scope of services.

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 16

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Draft and Final concept layouts
Â Draft and Final layout roll plot (30% Design)
and Design Check
Technical Memorandum for
geometric approval
Â Preliminary contour plan in PDF and CADD f
ormat
Â 60% Plans (PDF,
two [2] hard
copies, 24”x36”, bond)
Â 60% OPCC (Excel, PDF)
Â 90% Plans (PDF,
two [2] hard copies,
24”x36”, bond)
Â 90% OPCC (Excel, PDF)
Â 90% T
echnical Specifications (DOC, PDF)
Â Responses to City’s review comments on 60%
Submittal with return markups

Â Final/Signed Plans (PDF, one [1] hard
copy, 24”x36”, bond)
Â Final/Signed Specifications (PDF)
Â Final OPCC (PDF)
Â Responses to City’s review comments on 90%
Submittal with return markups

Â Raw bef
ore and after count data (PDF)
TASK 8: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Task 8.1. Stakeholder Coordination
SUBTASK 8.1.1. CITY STAFF DESIGN MEETINGS
Kimley-Horn will conduct focused meetings with City staff to discuss key Project features, corridor segments, and design concerns, and solicit their feedback. This scope of work assumes four (4) in-person meetings over the course of the Project.

SUBTASK 8.1.2. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Kimley-Horn will conduct a series of meetings with affected stakeholders, community groups, and business groups to inform them about the Project and solicit their feedback. This scope assumes the stakeholders will be defined during the Project kick-off meeting. This scope of work assumes up to six (6) meetings over the course of the Project. If conditions dictate, virtual/online format meetings can be accommodated.

SUBTASK 8.1.3. MEETINGS WITH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY COMMISSION GROUPS In coordination with City staff, Kimley-Horn will prepare for and present an overview of the Project to specific members of the City Council representative(s) for the Project area and relevant City staff and/or City Commissions. This scope assumes the Council members and commissions will be defined during the Project kick-off meeting. These meetings will address the Project scope and schedule, and provide an overview regarding our findings regarding baseline conditions and alternatives.

We will solicit feedback about the corridor, which will be used to further identify existing corridor multimodal deficiencies and help define specific Project objectives.

This scope of work assumes up to four (4) meetings over the course of the Project. If conditions dictate, virtual/online format meetings can be accommodated.

Task 8.2. Meetings and Coordination
We understand that Kimley-Horn staff will not be required to participate in public outreach events and will prepare outreach material for community engagement lead by City staff through community meetings, school board meetings, Traffic and Transportation Commission meetings, City Council meetings, and social media postings.

The material will include one (1) rendering of the roundabout at Harden Parkway and McKinnon Street and artistic cross-sections of the proposed multi-use path, walkways, and other proposed facilities.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CORRIDOR CONCEPT Kimley-Horn will prepare for Community Workshop #1 – Existing Conditions and Corridor Concept in coordination with City staff. The purpose of the workshop will be to provide a presentation on the existing conditions and concept improvements, and collect public feedback on issues to consider in refining Project improvements.

This feedback will be used during Task 6.1. Concept Refinement.

A workshop flyer will be prepared for distribution, emailing to stakeholders and persons on the Project email contact list, and public posting (by City staff).

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 – PROPOSED PROJECT
Kimley-Horn will prepare for Community Workshop #2 – Proposed Project in coordination with City staff. The purpose of the workshop will be to provide a presentation on the selected Project features that are included in the 30% Design/GAD which will be designed in the PS&E phase.

A workshop flyer will be prepared for distribution, emailing to stakeholders and persons on the Project email contact list, and public posting (by City staff).

Task 8.3. Traffic Simulation and Renderings
SUBTASK 8.3.1. DATA COLLECTION
This scope of work will build off of the previous ICE prepared for the Project. Kimley-Horn will be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of all information provided by the City. Any additional analysis not included in this scope of work may require an amendment to scope and fee.

The City shall provide all information requested by Kimley-Horn during the Project including, but not limited to, the following:

Recent/relevant Project area traffic data (i.e.,
volumes, classifications, speeds, collisions, etc.)
Forecast traffic data (volume,
truck volumes, etc.) in readily useable format for Cumulative Conditions Seasonal adjustment factors to convert avera
ge daily traffic (ADT) to average annual daily traffic (AADT) Kimley-Horn will complete a site visit of the Project vicinity to observe existing operations and lane configurations, vehicle storage lengths, existing traffic control,

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 17
speed limits, lane utilization, adjacent land uses, and other readily apparent features for the study facilities that are deemed by Kimley-Horn to be relevant to the Scope of Services. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City and Salinas Airport to obtain drone videos of the intersection for analysis of existing vehicle movements.

This Scope of Services includes collection of up to three (3) total 48-hour weekday, AM and PM peak-period intersection turning movement counts (2 hours each peak, 8 hours total per intersection).

SUBTASK 8.3.2 TRAFFIC SIMULATION
Kimley-Horn will prepare VISSIM simulations based on the facility traffic data collected under Task 8.3.1. Data Collection. We will prepare a VISSIM model for one roadway network including the following intersection:

Harden Parkway a
t McKinnon Street (Intersection 1)
Intersection 1 will be evaluated under roundabout control consistent with geometries established as part of the Project’s ICE and under a traffic signal control with a road diet corridor alternative. The weekday AM and weekday PM peak-hours will be evaluated.

The simulation will be used to qualitatively evaluate:

1. Vehicle queuing a
t the study intersections 2. Interactions between pedestrians and vehicles 3. Interactions between cyclists and vehicles SUBTASK 8.3.3: 3-D ANIMATION
Two (2) 3-D video renderings will be prepared for the study facilities and peak-hours identified in Task 8.3.1. Data Collection. The scenarios will feature Intersection 1 under the following intersection control:

Roundabout Traffic Signal
Task 8.4. Project Information and Outreach Materials
The outreach materials required for the aforementioned meetings and coordination tasks are included in this task and are assumed to be the following:

PowerPoint presentation
Project fact sheets
Cross sections
Meeting handouts
Graphic poster boards
Community meeting notice flyers
Two (2) 3-D
Video Renderings

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Community meeting notice flyers (two)
Â Public outreach materials f
or all community, stakeholder and local government meetings, including graphic poster boards (up to 6, 24”x36”), PowerPoint presentations, handouts, and signup and comment sheets
Â Summary meeting notes f
or all community, stakeholder, and local government meetings Â Weekda
y AM and Weekday PM peak-hour VISSIM simulation video (four [4] total videos, peak 15-minute period per peak-hour, showing corridor) Â Select 3-D VISSIM simula
tion video showing pedestrian-vehicle and cyclist-vehicle interactions at Intersection 1 (two [2] total videos, showing Intersection 1) Â 3-D Simulation video showing pedestrian-vehicle interactions a t Intersection 1
TASK 9: COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Kimley-Horn will support the City in preparing Caltrans documents required by the LAPM and CTC in order to clear the Project for construction. This tasks assumes up to 120 hours of time to complete miscellaneous documents, including: CTC allocation paperwork, LAPM Exhibit 3-A to request authorization for construction funding, LAPM Exhibit 13-B for right-of-way certification, LAPM Exhibit 12-D (PS&E Checklist), and coordination calls and/or meetings with Caltrans or CTC staff. Included in this task is the submittal of documentation necessary to comply with the Design Engineering Evaluation Report (DEER) permitting process. Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing the necessary documentation as required by CTC to submit for the Baseline Agreement and RFA for the PS&E phase, ROW phase, and CON phase.

Kimley-Horn will also assist the City in with preparing the necessary documentation as required by Caltrans to submit quarterly ATP Project Progress Reports, the Completion Report, and a Final Delivery Report. Time required to complete grant related documents for LAPM compliance or to coordinate with Caltrans for permitting purposes beyond the time identified in this paragraph can be provided for additional scope and fee.

We assume DBE calculations will be required.

TASK DELIVERABLES
Â Baseline Ag
reement and RFA documentation (PDF)
Â Assistance with Quarterly Prog
ress Reports, Completion Report, and Final Delivery Report Â Submittal of Caltrans permitting documentation
TASK 10: BIDDING SUPPORT SERVICES
The Kimley-Horn team will provide support to the City during the bidding phase by attending one (1) pre-bid meeting and reviewing and responding to bidders’ questions and RFIs. Our scope includes up to 60 hours total of Kimley-Horn staff time.

W
e assume the bidding support task to occur over 2 months.

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project City of Salinas  RSCASACR006304.2025
 18
TASK 11: DSDC
Task 11.1. DSDC
Kimley-Horn team will coordinate with and provide support to the City during construction. We assume this task to occur over 12 months. The following list of services may be provided as requested by the City. In providing these services, our scope includes up to 200 hours of Kimley-Horn staff. Effort beyond the assumed scope can be provided for an additional scope and fee.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Kimley-Horn will provide management and coordination of Kimley-Horn and subconsultant staff, including management and review of Consultant team contract and deliverables. We assume coordination with the City will occur through email and teleconference, in addition to the meetings identified below.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING
Attend the pre-construction meeting (up to two (2) Kimley-Horn staff). We assume the meeting to be conducted in person at the City offices or other location to be determined.

VISITS TO SITE
Kimley-Horn will make Project site visits as directed by the City. Such site visits will not be exhaustive or extend to every aspect of the Contractor’s work.

Kimley-Horn will not supervise, direct, or have control over the Contractor’s work, nor will Kimley-Horn have authority to stop the Work or have responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, equipment choice and usage, schedules, or procedures of construction selected by the Contractor, for safety programs incident to the Contractor’s work, or for any failure of the Contractor to comply with any laws. Kimley-Horn does not guarantee the performance of any Contractor and has no responsibility for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

CLARIFICATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Kimley-Horn will respond to reasonable and appropriate Contractor requests for information and issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents. Any orders authorizing variations from the Contract Documents will be made by the City.

SHOP DRAWINGS AND SAMPLES
Kimley-Horn will review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data which the Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such review and approvals or other action will not extend to means, methods, techniques, equipment choice and usage, schedules, or procedures of construction or to related safety programs.

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
Kimley-Horn will, after notice from the Contractor that it considers the Work ready for its intended use, in company with the City and Contractor, conduct a site visit to determine if the Work is substantially complete. Work will be considered substantially complete following satisfactory completion of all items with the exception of those identified on a final punch list.

FINAL NOTICE OF ACCEPTABILITY OF THE WORK
Kimley-Horn, if requested by the City, will conduct a final site visit to determine if the completed Work of the Contractor is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents and the final punch list. Kimley-Horn will also provide a notice that the Work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents to the best of Kimley-Horn’s knowledge, information, and belief based on the extent of its services and based upon information provided to Kimley-Horn.

LIMITATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Kimley-Horn will not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, or of any of their subcontractors, suppliers, or of any other individual or entity performing or furnishing the work. Kimley-Horn will not have the authority or responsibility to stop the work of any Contractor.

We assume the City’s own forces or a construction management (CM) firm will handle standard construction management, earthwork, and compaction testing. A Resident Engineer (RE) representing the City will oversee the construction. The regular earthwork observation and compaction testing are not in this scope of work.

Task 11.2. Prepare Record Drawings
Based on redline markups of the construction contract drawings provided by the Contractor and RE, Kimley-Horn will prepare record drawings that reflect the actual improvements constructed in the field. The accuracy of the record drawings will be limited by the accuracy and completeness of the redlines provided to Kimley-Horn.

We have assumed a total of 100 hours for Kimley-Horn staff time. An electronic PDF of the record drawings will be provided to the City. 196.54% Overhead% Name
Sean
Houck
Hunter
Young
Frederik
Venter
195.57% Overhead% w/o FCCM Category/Title Project
Manager
QC/QA
Manager
Principal-in-
Charge
13% Fee% Direct Rate $98.62 $76.94 $137.64 $113.81 $102.49 $92.35 $85.88 $78.73 $66.87 $57.22 $52.51 $47.85 $35.42 Billing Rate $330.34 $257.72 $461.04 $381.22 $343.30 $309.34 $287.67 $263.72 $223.99 $191.67 $175.89 $160.28 $118.64 Task 1 84 240 24 0 120 48 120 0 156 0 0 0 40 832 $ 230,920.10

1.1 24 48 40 112 $ 23,425.51

1.2 48 24 48 96 216 $ 63,272.84

1.3 12 12 24 $ 6,651.99

1.4 240 120 120 480 $ 137,569.76
Task 2 48 26 0 0 0 32 30 0 134 215 240 0 0 725 $ 154,522.56

2.1 2 20 60 75 100 257 $ 52,250.85

2.2 2 30 40 60 132 $ 27,510.74

2.3 10 6 10 20 46 $ 10,922.98

2.4 4 12 4 30 50 $ 11,206.09

2.5 30 20 60 80 50 240 $ 52,631.90
Task 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 30 0 0 0 46 $ 9,614.01

3.1 2 2 12 30 46 $ 9,614.01
Task 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 117 140 0 24 0 377 $ 82,470.27

4.1 $ -
Traffic Memorandum 4 16 $ 3,962.63
Noise Technical Memorandum 6 18 $ 4,793.94 Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum 5 16 $ 4,186.62 Section 4(f) Memorandum (De-Minimus) 4 16 $ 3,962.63 Visual Resources Memorandum 4 20 $ 4,729.29 Land Use Memorandum 6 16 $ 4,410.61
Cultural Resources Documentation $ - Area of Potential Effect MAP (APE) 46 $ 12,130.99 Archeological Survey Report (ASR) 49 $ 10,975.53 Historic Resources Evaluation Report
(HRER)
46 $ 12,130.99
Historic Propety Survey Report (HRSR) 39 $ 8,735.63

4.2 4 8 24 36 $ 6,701.43

4.3 Environmental Meetings and Coordination 30 30 $ 5,749.99 Task 5 15 60 0 0 0 0 70 0 125 0 65 0 0 335 $ 79,986.75

5.1 5 20 10 40 75 $ 18,642.43

5.2 5 10 10 10 25 60 $ 13,742.74

5.3 5 30 50 75 40 200 $ 47,601.58
Task 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ -

6.1 0 $ -
Task 7 130 0 0 0 0 90 120 250 330 490 590 810 0 2,810 $ 572,669.70

7.1 40 40 50 60 80 270 $ 55,132.41

7.2 20 20 30 30 30 80 80 100 390 $ 81,487.39

7.3 40 40 50 140 160 200 260 320 1,210 $ 248,083.79

7.4 20 20 30 60 80 110 140 220 680 $ 136,135.44

7.5 10 10 10 20 20 50 50 90 260 $ 51,830.67
Task 8 46 0 38 20 0 0 0 0 146 120 40 150 0 560 $ 127,120.08

8.1 14 14 42 20 90 $ 24,320.34

8.2 24 24 24 72 $ 24,369.04

8.3 4 40 60 90 194 $ 36,206.20

8.4 4 20 40 40 40 60 204 $ 42,224.50
Task 9 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 40 0 0 0 160 $ 38,021.77

9.1 20 40 60 40 160 $ 38,021.77
Task 10 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 30 $ 7,492.74

10.1 6 4 20 30 $ 7,492.74
Task 11 30 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 90 0 0 300 $ 65,145.16

11.1 20 30 50 50 50 200 $ 43,915.80

11.2 10 10 20 20 40 100 $ 21,229.35
385 412 62 20 120 170 340 342 1,170 1,105 1,025 984 40 6,175 $127,181.51 $106,181.21 $28,584.76 $7,624.45 $41,196.56 $52,587.69 $97,806.84 $90,191.29 $262,068.88 $211,791.44 $180,286.89 $157,715.84 $4,745.77 $ 1,367,963.14 $ 611,655.08
$ 124,066.56
Cultural Resources Records Searches $ 1,000.00 Optional Task: Additional City Staff Time $ 202,500.00 $ 5,000.00
$ 750.00
$ 40,960.00
$ 85,378.52
$ 91,000.00
Optional Task: Additiona Potholing (25 Locations) $ 48,500.00 $ 12,500.00
$ 1,979,618.22
Professional
II
Drainage and Stormwater Analysis
Urban Design Palate Concepts
QA/QC
Public Information and Outreach
Stakeholder Coordination
Community Meetings and Coordination
Traffic Simulation & Renderings
Project Information and Outreach Materials
Coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance
Coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance
Bidding Support Services
TOTAL COST:

CEQA Documentation
Concept Refinement
30% Design/GAD
60% PS&E
Project Management
Project Administration
Coordination and Meetings
MST Coordination
Sr.

Professional
IV
Sr.

Professional
III
Technical Study Work Program
Geotechnical Services
Pavement Assesment
Preliminary Engineering Studies

CITY OF SALINAS
Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Project
Support
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
COST
Analyst ISr.

Professional II
Sr.

Professional
I
Professional
III
Professional
I
Surveys and Mapping
Topographic Survey and Right of Way Mapping
Field Visits
Environmental Studies and Documentation
Analyst II
90% PS&E
Utility Coordination
Utility Location & Facility Mapping
Utility Potholing
Utility Coordination
Right of Way Phase & Determination
Right of Way Phase & Determination
Design
Final/Bid PS&E
Geotechnical Services (All Earth)
Surveys and Mapping (Whitson)
Design Support During Construction (DSDC)
DSDC
Prepare Record Drawings
Bidding Support Services
Travel/Mileage
Outside Printing

TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:

Other Direct Costs
Escalation
Potholing (2M) (50 Locations)
Traffic Counts (ATP Before/After Counts, (3) total 48-hour weekday peak counts) City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-145, Version: 1
Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
Approve a Resolution approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: MAY 6, 2025
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ADRIANA ROBLES, CITY ENGINEER

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: ROCHEX AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC

CALMING PLAN

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

City Council approved the FY 2023-2024 Prioritization of Traffic Calming Projects, which ranked Rochex Avenue as the fourth highest priority. Staff held two community meetings and worked with residents of Rochex Avenue to develop a traffic calming plan. A vote was conducted to gauge community support. The Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan did not meet the support requirements as prescribed by the City’s Policy. On February 13, 2025, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended a second vote to be conducted for the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan. City staff conducted a second vote and the neighborhood met the support requirements prescribed by the City’s Policy.

BACKGROUND:

In O ctober 2009, the City Council adopted the Salinas Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) to address residential neighborhood traffic concerns. The program was established to address traffic concerns from residential neighborhoods. Traffic calming devices are generally not considered traffic control devices as defined by the State and Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The City began compiling traffic calming studies in 2002 and found there were very few applications in California. To assist in the development of the City’s policy, the City hired a consultant to develop the Salinas NTMP . The resulting Traffic Calming Policy (“Policy”) contains a toolbox of traffic calming measures that can be used to address neighborhood problems associated with speed ing and vehicle volume on residential streets. The adoption of the policy also included the adoption of the traffic calming tools. The policy also provides the process for consideration of projects under the program which is important for securing the residents’ support.

Page | 2

While developing the Policy, City staff met with affected parties including emergency response providers, solid waste collection services and street sweeping. The refore, implementation of the Traffic Calming Program includes considerations and understanding of the program by potentially affected parties.

On November 7, 2017, following an influx of traffic calming requests received, the City Council approved criteria for prioritizing traffic calming requests based on traffic conditions, collision history, nearby land uses, roadway geometrics and facilities. These criteria provide a more holistic way of analyzing and prioritizing requests given the City’s limited resources. In order to process requests based on the approved criteria , staff annually present a recommended traffic calming priorities list to the Traffic and Transportation Comm ission and City Council. City staff then proceed with plan development, plan support and plan implementation based on Council approved priorities.

City staff has received comments and questions regarding the process of the Traffic Calming Policy from res idents, Councilmembers, and Commissioners. There has been concerns of the length of the process from when a traffic calming petition is submitted to when traffic calming devices are implemented, resources for the program, and the prioritization process. Staff has taken the comments and questions and will be working towards updating the Traffic Calming Policy.

Staff is aiming to begin the process by having a study session with the Traffic and Transportation Commission in July.

In March 2022, residents of Rochex Avenue submitted a petition requesting the City to investigate speeding issues along Rochex Avenue. Staff conducted traffic studies at various locations along the street, compiled data, analyzed the street, and the results confirmed pedestrian/bicycle collisions, horizontal curvature, and proximity to a designated school and pedestrian generator on Rochex Avenue. Rochex Avenue was ranked the fourth highest in the 2023-2024 Traffic Calming Prioritization, approved by City Council.

The Traffic and Transportation Division held two community meetings on January 18, 2024 and August 22, 2024, to develop a traffic calming plan with residents of Rochex Avenue neighborhood to address the concerns. With residents’ input received at both meetings, a neighborhood traffic calming plan was developed. The plan includes two (2) speed cushions and striping modifications.

Striping modifications will result in narrow travel lanes and shorter crossing distance at the crosswalk on Rochex Avenue and N 4 th St. Attachment 1 provides the approximate locations of the speed cushions and striping modifications.

In accordance with the Policy, the plan was taken to vote to determine support from residents. The vote was conducted over a 6-week period. On January 2, 2025, the voting period ended, and t he neighborhood did not meet the support vote require d. The City received ballots from 43% of all households, not meeting the 50% return rate requirement. Of the ballots received , 94% were in favor of the Plan . Therefore, staff recommended closing the traffic calming request for Rochex Avenue as presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission on its meeting of February 13, 2025.

Page | 3
Staff conducted a second vote for the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan over a 4-week period. On March 27, 2025, the voting period ended, and the neighborhood met the support vote required. The City received ballots from 55% of all households, meeting the 50% return rate requirement. Of the ballots received, 95% were in favor of the Plan. Therefore, staff now recommend the approval and implementation of the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by its residents.

While conducting the second vote for the Rochex A venue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Polan, it was brought to the attention of staff that the number of households included some businesses fronting North Main Street. This was brought to staff’s attention during the first week of the second vote round. Staff acknowledged there had been an error with these addresses and removed them from the remainder of the time period of the second vote. A review of the adjusted results from the first vote revealed that the neighborhood had not met the plan support requirement.

Traffic And Transportation Commission

The Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its February 13, 2025, meeting with staff’s recommendation to close the traffic calming petition because plan support requirements were not met as prescribed by the City’s Policy. At the meeting, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended for a second vote to be conducted . After conducting the second vote as described previously, staff represented the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffi c Calming Plan to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its meeting on April 10, 2025, with staff’s recommendation to recommend an approval of the Plan for implementation supported by residents. At this meeting the Commission voted (5 -0) recommending City Council approve a Resolution approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation.

It is important to point out that this recommendation is being brought forward under the existing Council adopted process. However, the current process is scheduled to b e brought before the Commission in the near future for review and possible changes . Any updates and/or changes would then be subsequently brought forward to the Council for consideration.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES:

No.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The Traffic Calming Policy support Council’s goal of “Public Safety”.

Page | 4

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Public Works staff coordinate with the Salinas Fire Department on the recommendation of the traffic calming plan. Staff also coordinates with the Salinas Police Department if traffic calming enforcement assistance is necessary.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan. Sufficient funding is available in the Traffic Calming Program budget (CIP 9163) to complete this work.

Fund

Appropriation

Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 1: Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan

RESOLUTION NO. _______ (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROCHEX AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC

CALMING PLAN SUPPORTED BY RESIDENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City’s Traffic Calming Policy at its October 6, 2009 meeting (Resolution No. 19764) which outlined a process for consideration of traffic calming requests from the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the prioritization strategy for Traffic Calming requests on its November 7, 2017 meeting (Resolution No. 21291) with the support of the Traffic and Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, at its June 13, 2023 meeting, City Council approved the 202 3-2024 fiscal year Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project Prioritization List (Resolution No. 22696), whereas Rochex Avenue ranked the fourth highest priority; and
WHEREAS, staff worked with residents of Rochex Avenue to develop a traffic calming plan. As required by the City’s policy, a vote was conducted to gauge community support, and the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan did not meet the plan support required as prescribed by the City’s policy; and
WHEREAS, The Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its February 13, 2025, meeting with staff’s recommendation to close the traffic calming petition because plan support requirements were not met as prescribed by the City’s Policy, but the Commission recommended a second vote be conducted; and
WHEREAS, A second vote was conducted where the neighborhood met the plan support requirements and staff represented the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan to the Traffic and Transportation Commission at its meeting of April 10, 2025, with staff’s recommendation to recommend an approval of the Plan for implementation supported by its residents. The Commission voted (5 -0) recommending City Council approve a Resolution approving the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas has determined that implementing the traffic calming plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301, Class 1). The project consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of public streets involving no expansion of use. There would be no significant effect on the environment NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the Rochex Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan supported by residents for implementation utilizing CIP 9163 – Traffic Calming Improvements for expenditures.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

__________________________________
Dennis Donohue, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

CRESCENT WAYCRESCENT WAY

TULANE ST

TYLER ST
N 4TH ST
N 3RD ST

PARKSIDE ST

CLAREMONT ST

HUNTINGTON ST

W LAUREL DR

N MAIN ST

ROCHEX AVE

POLK ST

MONROE ST
N 3RD ST
N 2ND ST

N FIRST ST

W CURTIS ST
N 4TH ST

RODEO AVE

BOEING AVE
stop
stop
stopstop
stop
stop
stop

DETAIL A

DETAIL B
N 4TH ST
stop
stop
stop

DETAIL A
LEGEND

PROPOSED SPEED CUSHION
EXISTING STOP SIGNstop

PROPOSED ROCHEX AVE

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
PLAN DE PROPUESTO DE MODERACIÓN

DE TRAFICO EN LA CALLE ROCHEX AVE

TYPICAL INSTALLATION
00250'500'
SCALE: 1"= 250'
S
A
L
IN
A
S
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I A
N

DETAIL B

STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#25-150, Version: 1
Administrative Correction to Resolution No. 23211
Approve a Resolution authorizing an administrative correction of the not to exceed additional funding allocation amount stated in Resolution No. 23211 (N.C.S.) approved on March 25, 2025, and authorizing the Mayor to execute, and staff to submit a corrected State Resolution No. 23211 for the HCD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program Continuum of Care (CoC) Allocation of behalf of the City Council.

City of Salinas Printed on 5/1/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: MAY 6, 2025
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR

THROUGH VINCENT MONTGOMERY, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: KAYSHLA LOPEZ, HOMELESS SERVICES MANAGER
TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION NO. 23211

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing an administrative correction of the not to exceed additional funding allocation amount stated in Resolution No. 23211 (N.C.S.) approved on March 25, 202 5, and authorizing the Mayor to execute , and staff to submit a corrected State Resolution No. 23211 for the HCD Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program Continuum of Care (CoC) Allocation of behalf of the City Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Community Development Department is seeking an administrative correction to State Resolution No. 23211 for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) previously approved on March 25, 2025. HCD has indicated the need to correct the not to exceed additional funding allocation amount of $117,919 referenced to reflect the correct amount of $171,919.

BACKGROUND:

On March 25, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 23211, authorizing the submission of an application to 2024 HCD ESG CoC Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). HCD informed City staff that the State Resolution included an incorrect additional funding allocation amount .

HCD has requested that City Council appr ove a new State resolution containing the corrected amount of the addition funding allocation for the City to be fully compliant with the requirements set forth by HCD to then allow for the execution of the ESG standard agreement for FY 25-26 and the execution of subsequent subrecipient agreements.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that this administrative action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

Page | 2

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The City administers HCD ESG Program CoC Allocation funding to undertake a variety of programs instrumental in providing homeless services throughout the City and region, furthering partnerships with public service organizations, and addressing the service needs of the City’s low- income, elderly, and special needs communities. Execution of the propo sed resolutions supports the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goal and Strategy of Housing/Affordable Housing.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This agenda item was prepared by the City’s Community Development Department in coordination with the City Attorney and Finance Department. Additional, external coordination with outside agencies and jurisdictions, such as HCD and staff of the local CoC #506 Leadership Council, has also occurred.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no General Fund impact associated with this agenda item. Awarded 2024 HCD ESG CoC funds will be appropriated to the Emergency Solutions Grant – CoC fund. If awarded, HCD ESG Program budget appropriation for 3 years could be up to $1,031,517.

Fund

Appropriation

Appropriation
Name
Total
Appropriation
Amount for
recommendation
FY 24-25
Operating
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Resolution)
2941 n/a n/a n/a $1,031,517 n/a n/a

ATTACHMENTS:

City Resolution No 23211
HCD Resolution No. 23211
City Resolution Authorizing Administrative Correction to Resolution No. 23211 HCD Resolution with Administrative Correction

Page 1 of 2 ends

Salinas City CouncilMay 6, 2025

Salinas City Council
May 6, 2025