DRAFT NITIAL TUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE D

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

MONTEREY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE

VOLUME I OF II

Prepared for:

COUNTY OF MONTEREY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES COUNTY OF MONTEREY

168 W. ALISAL STREET, 2ND FLOOR SALINAS, CA 93901

Prepared by:

PMC

585 Cannery Row, Suite 304 Monterey, California 93940

(831) 644-9174

JANUARY 2008

DRAFT Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

FOR THE

MONTEREY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE

MONTEREY COUNTY

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Prepared for:

COUNTY OF MONTEREY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES COUNTY OF MONTEREY

168 W. ALISAL STREET, 2ND FLOOR SALINAS, CA 93901

Prepared by:

PMC

585 Cannery Row, Suite 304 Monterey, California 93940

(831) 644-9174

JANUARY 2008

VOLUME I OF II (VOLUME II -TECHNICAL APPENDICES - ON ATTACHED CD)

MONTEREY COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 168 WEST ALISAL ST., 2nd FLOOR, SALINAS, CA 93901 PHONE: (831) 755-4800 FAX: (831) 755-4958

INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Project Title: Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure

File Number: PD060376

Project Location: 300 Cayuga Street, Salinas

Name of Property Owner: County of Monterey

Name of Project Proponent: Monterey County Public Works, Architectural Services (Tony Mitre, Project Manager)

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 002-322-018-000

Acreage of Property: 43,400 square feet (approximately 1 acre)

General Plan Designation: PS (Public/Semi-Public)

Zoning District: PS (Public/Semi-Public)

Lead Agency: Monterey County Public Works Department

Prepared By: PMC for Lead Agency

Date Prepared: December 31, 2007

Contact Person: Tony Mitre, Project Manager

Phone Number/Email: (831) 755-4800; [email protected]

Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure January2008 Draft Initial Study Page 1

mailto:[email protected]


II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Project Background: Prior to 2005, various Monterey County government facilities and departments were decentralized within several facilities in several locations. To provide improved efficiency and services, the need to consolidate the County and Court functions within a new Administrative Building was identified as part of the goals and objectives of the Monterey County 2001 Facilities Master Plan. In 2005, the County completed construction of the 138,000 square foot multi-story Administration Building at 168 West Alisal Street, Salinas. The Administration Building joined the existing North, East and West Wing buildings, which are now collectively referred to as the Monterey County Government Center (MCGC). The addition of the Administration Building brought the total permanent building area on the site to approximately 306,000 square feet. There are also four modular buildings on-site and one modular building off-site at the corner of West Alisal Street and Church Street. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2003011115) was prepared for the MCGC project and subsequently certified by the Board of Supervisors in 2003. The EIR analyzed project impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. One of the project impacts identified in the EIR was a shortfall of available off-street parking to meet total project demand. To resolve the predicted parking deficit, a number of parking strategies were explored as part of the parking assessment and were included as a mitigation measure (MM 3.8-3 of the EIR). This mitigation measure included the option of constructing a multi-level parking structure to accommodate the projected off-street parking demand and/or implementation of an alternative parking plan. Funding for a parking structure was not available at the time of construction of the MCGC. As a result, the expansion of the MCGC has had a significant effect on parking in the immediate area. County employees have complained about the lack of parking spaces near their workplace and the City of Salinas has received complaints from residents in the area who object to employees and visitors to the MCGC parking in their neighborhoods. The Monterey County Capital Projects staff (now Architectural Services) was directed to continue its investigation and evaluation of the current stock of County-owned properties that would be suitable for a multi-level parking structure. Architectural Services determined that the County had four potential locations that were located within a three minute walking distance to the MCGC. Those locations included: 1) 111 West Alisal Street; 2) 300 Cayuga Street; 3) 230 Church Street – Modulars #1, 2, & 3, and 4); and 168 West Alisal Street – Parking Lot A & B. Two studies were prepared to analyze the proposed locations for a parking structure and to determine the most viable location of the four. These included a Phase I Parking Study for the MCGC Parking Structure prepared by Higgins Associates (October 2007) and a Preliminary Site Screening of Physical Factors for the MCGC Parking Structure prepared by PMC (September 2007). Based on these studies, as well as the financial feasibility of the available options, Architectural Services staff recommended that the 300 Cayuga Street parking lot site (located at Cayuga and West Alisal) would be the most viable location for a multi-level parking structure. On October 16, 2007, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the recommended selection of the 300 Cayuga Street parking lot site.


B. Project Description: Primary Features: The MCGC Parking Structure project would be located on an existing surface parking lot off of West Alisal Street, between Cayuga and Capitol Streets. The project proposes a multi-level parking structure consisting of up to 550 parking spaces on 5 levels, plus a ¾ underground level (dependent on subsurface geology). The structural footprint would be approximately 35,000 square feet, constructed on a 43,400 square foot parcel, with a structural height of up to 57 feet. The parking structure would be for County and Court employees and contractor use only. There would be no public access or parking for jurors or visitors. As the existing lot contains 141 parking spaces, the net increase in parking at the site would be up to 409 spaces. Two access/egress alternatives were analyzed for the parking structure to determine optimal traffic movement. The design preferred by the County would provide full-access ingress and egress at one driveway on Cayuga Street, with a second full ingress/egress driveway on Capitol Street. Another right-out only egress point directly to West Alisal Street will be established; however, this egress will be for emergency purposes only (see Figure 5). The project will result in additional traffic improvements around the parking structure, including new traffic signal(s), restriping, new curb returns at corners, and accommodation of a bus turnout along West Alisal. Specifically, the signalization of West Alisal Street and Capitol Street is part of the project and project description, because this intersection is currently deficient. These improvements, and the conditions that require them, are discussed in detail within Section 15 of the Initial Study, Transportation and Traffic. The County is currently interviewing architects and engineers for the design scope of work; however, the County has prepared a preliminary design concept to demonstrate the structure’s possible appearance, size and relative scale. The County has issued RFP #10018 for full design services associated with the project. The structure’s design is anticipated to be a spiral “park on ramp” style with two main elevators located on the West Alisal Street (eastern) side, and two stairwells located on the project’s western corners. A future pedestrian bridge or skywalk, which would connect the parking structure to the new Administrative Building, may be constructed after completion of this phase of the project if there is adequate funding available. If constructed, the skywalk would span across West Alisal Street to provide a direct pedestrian connection, eliminating or greatly reducing pedestrian movements across West Alisal. The ground (at-grade) level of the structure along West Alisal Street may contain areas designated for limited retail use and vending. The retail use would encompass a maximum of 5,000 square feet of total space, and would be restricted or conditioned to only allow ready-made foods and other concession-style “grab and go” items, such as sandwiches, baked goods, newsstand items, sundries, coffee, juice, etc. In addition, the structure may include up to four vending locations of up to 900 square feet each, again with limited goods for sale. The retail uses are limited and intended to cater to County employees and pedestrians in the immediate area. It is anticipated that the retail use would not serve as a commercial destination to generate or draw outside traffic. The use is intended to be incidental and subservient to the parking structure. If the


retail use is not desired or found feasible within the structure, that area will become available for parking use within the overall design of the structure. Operational Features The project proposes to be a “high tech” parking structure, with an emphasis on security, safety and aesthetic appeal. The structure would include an office, security rooms with direct elevator access and monitors, and a control and facilities room. Security features would include an estimated 75 cameras, monitor bay, emergency “panic” buttons, communication devices on all levels with direct access to security, high visibility, secure employee entry and exit systems, suicide/safety screens along the roof perimeter, and other features that will be designed and installed based on final architectural design. The project may also include electronic signage indicating available capacity and location of open spaces within the structure, to inform employees upon entering. In order to avoid queuing of cars at peak morning and evening hours, staged work hours for employees would be implemented as part of the overall operations to spread the timing of structure ingress and egress. Operational hours are proposed from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. For security purposes, the structure would close and would not allow ingress or egress after 7 p.m. Employees parked in the structure would require assistance from security personnel to exit the structure after 7 p.m. The structure would maintain 2-3 security personnel at all times. Design Features The ultimate structure design is planned to reflect surrounding architectural themes and color schemes from the East/West Wings, Old Jail, and Californian building, as well as the design of the new Administration Building. The front façade along West Alisal Street would be a connected but separate structure from the main ramp/garage structure. This “façade” feature would provide the main design elements, involving architectural features, design details, and heavy use of glass and art deco elements for both design and security purposes. The structure will reflect an art deco building, consistent with the design scope of County RFP #10018. The project proposes to incorporate solar panels on the roof with a goal to provide 50% of the structure’s electrical needs. The project would also incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into its design to reduce urban runoff and improve runoff water quality. For example, stormwater runoff from non-parked surfaces is planned for capture and reuse for landscape irrigation. Other design and landscape themes may include new perimeter tree plantings, large planter containers, outdoor seating, bold design treatment and awnings at the project corners, wide sidewalk width along West Alisal, and complimentary and distinguished paving materials. The intent of the ultimate design is to project the image of a creative art deco building, rather than simply a utilitarian parking structure. The back side of the structure would be designed and constructed with a thematic, colorful, and visually interesting treatment using formed concrete metal work or similar materials. The purpose of this design feature on this side is to soften the view from the adjacent law office building. In addition, the narrow County alleyway that separates the law office building from the


new structure would be “streetscaped” with landscaping and design elements to ensure a secure and inviting corridor between the structures. The exterior, or “skin” of the building would be consistent with the overall architectural theme, and would allow airflow through the structure. The roof treatment is proposed to be “stepped” back and tapered toward the top in order to provide architectural interest and to soften the mass of the structure. Construction The ¾ underground level is intended to maximize the available site area and reduce the overall height and scale of the structure. A project design involving a partial level below existing grade would require excavation and off-haul of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material. The project proposes to deposit excavated soil material at the County’s Laurel Maintenance Facility property, where the material could be spread, compacted or used for fill. This off-haul would require approximately 250 truck trips. Ultimately, the ¾ underground level will be determined by the results of the geotechnical investigation. Construction staging may necessitate the temporary closure of Cayuga Street to through traffic, immediately adjacent to the site. This section of Cayuga would be used for material delivery, equipment access and construction staging, in order to minimize construction impacts on other public streets. Contractor parking will be located at the construction site, with overflow contractor parking located at County parking facilities at 111 West Alisal. The sidewalk facing the construction site along West Alisal will be separated by a wooden barrier and covered by a protective overhang as commonly used in urban construction projects. Total construction time for the parking structure is estimated at 14 months. Pile driving, if found to be the best method of construction for this project, is estimated to take place over a three (3) week period. C. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The property is located opposite from the new Administrative Building and across West Alisal Street, between Capitol and Cayuga Streets (Assessor's Parcel Number 002-322-018-000), Salinas. The project would be located on County-owned property that is within the City of Salinas corporate limits. The property contains an existing asphalt parking lot surrounded by sidewalks and some ornamental trees. The parking lot is currently used by County employees, with a total of 141 existing parking spaces. Vehicular access to the existing parking lot is off of Capitol and Cayuga Streets. Existing crosswalks at both ends of the lot provide pedestrian right-of-way movement across West Alisal Street and to the MCGC. The cross walk at Cayuga and West Alisal is a pedestrian-triggered flasher. The subject property is flat with surface elevations between approximately 55 and 60 feet above mean sea level. The site is underlain by Quaternary age alluvium composed of unconsolidated sand, silt, and gravel.


The project site is designated as Public/Semi-Public (PS) under the City of Salinas General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is surrounded by developed properties. Existing surrounding land uses include the MCGC and visitor parking lot across West Alisal Street to the north; single family residences, apartments, and commercial offices to the west; single family residences to the southwest and southeast; the three-story Lombardo & Gilles law office building to the south; and the Californian newspaper building to the east. See Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the Vicinity Map, Location Map, Concept Design Plans, Site Photos, and Site Plan/Entry Locations, respectively. III. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND MANDATED LAWS Use the list below to indicate plans applicable to the project and verify their consistency or non-consistency with project implementation. General Plan/Area Plan Air Quality Mgmt. Plan Specific Plan Airport Land Use Plans Water Quality Control Plan Local Coastal Program-LUP City of Salinas General Plan: As County-owned property proposed to support government services, the site would not be subject to the City of Salinas General Plan and Development Regulations even though the site is within the boundaries of the Salinas city limits. However, the County is committed to working with City staff to avoid inconsistencies with City codes and standards, and a finding of conformity with the City’s General Plan will be pursued consistent with Section 65402 of the Government Code. The project was reviewed for consistency with the City of Salinas General Plan. Section VI.9 (Land Use and Planning) discusses whether the project physically divides an established community, conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project or conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan policies. The Salinas General Plan (Reference #2) designates the site with a “Public/Semi-Public” (PS) land use designation. The proposed project would be consistent with allowable uses and development standards under this designation. CONSISTENT Water Quality Control Plan: The Regional Water Quality Control Board incorporates the City of Salinas General Plan in its preparation of regional water quality plans. The project would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan and with AMBAG’S regional population and employment forecast and, therefore, would be consistent with the Regional Water Quality Control Plan. Section VI.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality) discusses whether the proposed project violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge, substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or creates or contributes runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage.


CONSISTENT Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): Consistency with the AQMP is an indication of a project’s cumulative adverse impact on regional air quality (ozone levels). It is not an indication of project-specific impacts, which are evaluated according to the Air District’s adopted thresholds of significance. Inconsistency with the AQMP is considered a significant cumulative air quality impact. Consistency of indirect emissions associated with public infrastructure projects, which are intended to meet the needs of the population forecasted in the AQMP, is determined by comparing the project population at the year of project completion with the population forecast for the appropriate five year increment that is listed in the AQMP. If the population increase resulting from the project would not cause the estimated cumulative population to exceed the relevant forecast, the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Consistency of direct emissions would be based on elements of the project: stationary sources subject to Air District permit authority would be evaluated to determine compliance with Air District rules and regulations; sources not subject to permit authority would be evaluated to determine if the emissions are forecast in the AQMP emission inventory. The project consists of a multi-level parking structure to support the parking demand generated by the MCGC. The project would not significantly increase the population to a point that would exceed the relevant forecast and would not exceed emissions that are forecast in the AQMP emission inventory. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the population and emissions forecasts in the AQMP. CONSISTENT

1

17

68

1

1

M o n t e r e yB a y

M o n t e r e yC o u n t y

M o n t e r e yC o u n t y

S a n B e n i t oC o u n t y

S a n B e n i t oC o u n t y

S a n t a C l a r aC o u n t y

S a n t a C l a r aC o u n t y

S a n t a C r u zC o u n t y

S a n t a C r u zC o u n t y

101

101 San Luis Reservoir

Anderson Lake

Coyote Lake

Calero Reservoir

Uvas Reservoir

Chesbro Reservoir

San Jose

Salinas

Santa Cruz

Gilroy--Morgan Hill

Watsonville

Seaside--Monterey--Marina

HollisterHollisterAromasAromas

GreenfieldGreenfield

SoledadSoledad

GonzalesGonzales

King CityKing City

Pinnacles National MonumentPinnacles National Monument

Henry Coe State ParkHenry Coe State Park

Forest of Nisene Marks St ParkForest of Nisene Marks St Park

Big Basin Redwoods State ParkBig Basin Redwoods State Park

Source: ESRI; CaSIL

T:\_G

IS\MO

NTER

EY_C

OUNT

Y\MX

DS\M

ONTER

EY PA

RKING

STRU

CTUR

E\VIC

INITY

MAP

.MXD

- 12/

13/2

007 @

11:03

:22 A

M

4 0 4

MILES

ProjectLocation

Figure 1Project Vicinity Map

Project Site

CAP

ITOL S

T

ALISAL ST

CH

UR

CH

ST

CLAY ST

RIKE

R S

TSAN LUIS ST

LINC

OLN

AV

CAYU

GA ST

CLAY

HOWARD ST

AUBURN ST

RIKE

R TER

AUBURN ST

Source: ESRI; CaSIL

T:\_G

IS\MO

NTER

EY_C

OUNT

Y\MX

DS\M

ONTER

EY PA

RKING

STRU

CTUR

E\LO

CATIO

N MA

P.MXD

- 12/

13/2

007 @

11:29

:38 A

M

100 0 100

FEETFigure 2

Project Location Map

Source: PMC, 2007

Figure 3aConcept Design Plans

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - 2

7-013

2\Fig

ures\

Figure

3a - C

once

pt D

esign

Plan

s. ai, D

ecem

ber 2

007

Source: PMC, 2007

Figure 3bConcept Design Plans

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - 2

7-013

2\Fig

ures\

Figure

3b - C

once

pt D

esign

Plan

s. ai, D

ecem

ber 2

007

Figure 4aSite Photos

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - P

07-01

32\F

igures

\Figu

re 4a

- Site

Phot

os.ai

, Dec

embe

r 200

7

1. View of the Project Site from the Intersection of W. Alisal and Capitol Streets. The Adjacent Law Office Building is in the Background

2. View of W. Alisal Street and Adjacent Commercial and Institutional Land Uses in the Background

Figure 4bSite Photos

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - P

07-01

32\F

igures

\Figu

re 4b

- Site

Phot

os.ai

, Dec

embe

r 200

7

3. View of Capitol Street and Adjacent Commercial and Residential Land Uses

4. View of the Monterey County Administrative Building from the Project Site

60

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

WW

W

WW

W

WW

WW

WW

WW

WWW

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SD

SDSD

SD

SDSD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SD

SD

SD

SDSD

SD

SD

W

W

W

W

SSSS

SS

SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

SSSS

SS

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

SSSS

SSSS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TELTEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TELTEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TEL

TELTEL

TEL

UT

UT

EL

EC

TE

L

TEL

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

TE

L

GM

48.5

48.6

48.6

48.6

48.7

48.8

48.9

49.8

49.4

49.0

49.4

49.1

49.0

49.2

49.4

49.4

49.2

48.9

49.1

49.2

49.249.7

49.9

49.2

49.3

48.6

48.7

49.4

49.3

49.3

49.1

49.149.1

49.2

48.8

48.8 49.0

49.1

48.8

48.4

48.5

48.4

TC= 48 .9 2

TC= 48 .9 8

TC= 48 .5 9

TC= 49 .0 7

TC= 48 .9 1

TC= 49 .1 8

TC= 49 .6 0TC= 49 .2 8

TC= 49 .2 2TC= 49 .9 3

TC= 48 .4 6

TC= 48 .2 1

TC= 48 .2 9

TC= 48 .6 2

TC= 48 .6 7

TC= 48 .7 1

TC= 48 .8 5

TC= 48 .9 9 TC= 49 .0 0

TC= 49 .0 2 TC= 48 .9 7

TC= 48 .9 9

TC= 48 .9 9

TC= 49 .0 2

TC= 49 .0 1TC= 50 .0 0

TC= 50 .2 2TC= 50 .1 4 TC= 50 .1 3

TC= 50 .1 3

TC= 50 .1 9

TC= 49 .8 3

TC= 49 .2 4

TC= 49 .0 2

TC= 48 .9 2

TC= 48 .8 4

TC= 48 .9 2

TC= 48 .9 0

TC= 48 .7 2

TC= 48 .7 9

TC= 49 .0 2

TC= 49 .0 3

TC= 49 .9 1

SSMHRIM =49.42

INV 12"NE=37.50

INV 12"SE=37.36

INV 18"W=37.09

SSMHRIM =49.36

INV 18"E=37.48

INV 18" N =37.16

INV 12" S= 37.24

18"SS

18"SS

SSMHRIM =48.89

INV 8"N=39.16

INV 8"S=39.21

SDM HRIM =49.53

INV 15"N=43.78

INV 15"SE=43.83

SDM HRIM =49.39

INV 18"E=43.31

INV 18"W=43.29

INV 15"S=43.41

SDM HRIM =49.24

INV 18"E=43.42

INV 18"W=43.32

INV 12"S=43.41

SDM HRIM =48.86

SDM HRIM =49.36

INV 30"N=42.54

INV 18"E=42.83

INV 24"S=42.90

INV 12"W=43.39

INV 12"SE =

SDM HRIM =48.86

INV 12"W=44.16

INV 15"W=43.06

INV 12"E=43.66

INV 24"S=43.15

INV 24"N=43.11

CBTC = 48.37

RIM =47.62

INV 12"N=46.02

DI 1 .4X1.4

RIM =48.21

INV 12"W=45.75

INV BOT=45.39

INLET 6IN

FL=48.28

48.6

48.5

48.5

48.4

48.648.6

48.6

49.2

48.848.6

48.6

49.5 48.7

48.6 48.7

48.748.6

49.3

49.9

49.3

49.4

48.6

49.3

48.648.5

48.648.6

49.3

49.4

48.3

48.9

49.0

48.9

48.9

49.1

48.6

48.648.5

49.1

49.5

49.7

49.8

48.6

48.5

48.5 48.6

49.3

49.8

49.6

49.6

50.049.7

49.9

CATV

50.350.3

50.150.1

50.2 49.8

49.1

49.549.5

49.5

49.4

49.4

49.4

118"

SS

8"SS

8"SS

24"S

D

24"S

D

6"SD

12"SD

12"SD

12"SD

18"SS

24"S

D30

"SD

30"S

D18"SD

12"SD

TC= 50 .1 4

TC= 50 .1 5

TC= 50 .1 4

TC= 50 .0 9

TC= 50 .2 8

TC= 50 .1 7

TC= 50 .1 9

TC= 50 .1 9

TC= 50 .1 6

TC= 49 .4 4

TC= 48 .6 9

TC= 49 .7 8

18"SD

18"SD

18"SS

6"SS

6"SS

4"SS

4"SS

15"S

D

15"S

D

15"SD

12"S

D

TREE 10 "

PO P 12"

PO P 12"

PO P 12"

A. C. PAVEMENT

A. C. PAVEMENT

A. C. PAVEMENT

A. C. PAVEMENT

A. C. PAVEMENT

A. C

. PAV

EM

EN

T

A. C. PAVEMENT

WOOD & BR IC K

BUILDING

BLOC K WALL PLANTER

A. C. PAVEMENT

SIDEWALK

CURB & GUTTER

SIDEWALK

CURB & GUTTER

SID

EW

ALK

CU

RB

SID

EW

ALK

CU

RB

& G

UTT

ER

DR

IVE

WAY

DR

IVE

WAY

ALISAL STREET

CA

PIT

OL

STR

EE

T

CAY

UG

A S

TRE

ET

(A CITY STREET WIDTH VARIES)

(A C

ITY

STR

EET

60'

WID

E)

(A C

ITY

STR

EET

60'

WID

E)

AUBURN STREET

(A CITY STREET 60' WIDE)

AUBURN STREET

(A CITY STREET 60' WIDE)OLD LOT LINE

OLD LOT LINE

DRIVEWAY

DR

IVE

WAY

CO

NC

.

DIRIM =50.16

CON C

ST UM P

ST UM P

CO

NC

.

(LIP

IS U

ND

ER

AC

)

(LIP IS UNDER AC)

(GU

TTE

R IS

UN

DE

R A

C)

(GUTTER IS UNDER AC)

CURB

30' W id e Ease me nt for P ublic U tilit ie s p er R .47 6-OR-9 50

10' W id e Ease me nt for L an dscap e & Roo f Ove rh an g p er R .1 662 -O R-3 6

TEL

TEL

48.9

48. 6

48. 6

48. 7

48. 8

49. 0

48. 848. 9

48.4

48.6

TC= 48 .6 2

TC= 49 .0 1

49.3

49.2

49. 5

49.5

49. 5

49.2

49.1

48.9

49.1

49.3

49. 1

48. 6 TC= 49 .1 5

TC= 48 .8 7

TC= 48 .8 9

WM

WM

49. 7

49. 3

49. 1

49. 3

49. 5

50. 0

49. 9

49. 6

49. 2

49. 4

49. 6

49. 8

49. 8

49. 5

49. 5

49. 4

49. 5

49. 5

49. 7

49. 7

49. 5

50. 0

49. 9

49. 5

49. 4

49. 6

49. 6

49. 5

49. 7

49. 6

48.7

49. 0

49. 0

49.2

48.9

48.6

48.6

48.8

48.6

48.848.1

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-N

C

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-NC

UT-N

CU

T-NC

UT-N

C

UT-NC

UT-NC

49.5

48.0

48.2

48.0

49.6

49.5

49.7

49.5

49. 8

49.3

48.2

48.3

48.4

48.348.2

TC= 48 .7 0

TC= 48 .7 5

TC= 48 .6 6

TC= 48 .2 4

TC= 48 .7 0

TC= 48 .7 2

TC= 48 .9 5

TC= 48 .9 1

TC= 49 .0 2

TC= 49 .1 2

TC= 48 .6 6

TC= 48 .6 7

TC= 48 .4 2

TC= 48 .3 7TC= 48 .3 3

TC= 47 .9 2

TC= 47 .8 9

TC= 48 .3 7

TC= 48 .3 9

47.948.1

48.248.2

48.3

48.2

TC= 50 .1 4

PO P 12"

MAG NO LIA 1 6"

A.P.N. 002-322-018

A.P.N. 002-322-016

A.P.N. 002-322-017

Ram p

Ram

p

Concrete

Concrete

Elec. M eter

Planter

Planter

SID

EW

ALK

Emergency Exit

East Ingress/Egress

West Ingress/Egress

Building Footprint

17.5 FeetFrom Curb

15 FeetFrom Curb

15 FeetFrom Curb

135 '

Figure 5Source:

T:\_G

IS\MO

NTER

EY_C

OUNT

Y\MX

DS\P

OLAR

IS.MX

D - 1

/8/2

008 @

3:46

:32 PM

25 0 25

FEET Site Plan And Access Locations


IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND DETERMINATION

A. FACTORS The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as discussed within the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems Some proposed applications that are not exempt from CEQA review may have little or no potential for adverse environmental impact related to most of the topics in the Environmental Checklist; and/or potential impacts may involve only a few limited subject areas. These types of projects are generally minor in scope, located in a non-sensitive environment, and are easily identifiable and without public controversy. For the environmental issue areas where there is no potential for significant environmental impact (and not checked above), the following finding can be made using the project description, environmental setting, or other information as supporting evidence.

Check here if this finding is not applicable FINDING: For the above referenced topics that are not checked off, there is no potential for

significant environmental impact to occur from construction, operation or maintenance of the proposed project and no further discussion in the Environmental Checklist is necessary.

EVIDENCE: Based upon the planner’s project analysis, many of the above topics on the

checklist do not apply. Less than significant impacts or potentially significant impacts are identified for aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, and transportation/traffic. The project will have no quantifiable adverse environmental effect on the categories not checked above, as follows:


Agricultural Resources: The project site is in the urbanized downtown Salinas area. The project would not be located on agricultural land and would not convert prime farmland to other uses. The site is zoned for Public/Quasi Public use. There is no Williamson Act Contract on the parcel or on any parcels in the vicinity. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8) Biological Resources: The project site is a previously disturbed urban location that contains an existing paved parking lot. The site is surrounded by urban development. There are no sensitive biological resources such as wetlands or riparian areas at the site, nor is there sensitive habitat or habitats that could support special status species. Three magnolia trees and ornamental street trees surround the site. None of these trees are of significant biological or cultural value. Removal of these trees, if necessary for construction, could be easily replanted and/or replaced as part of the project. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Mineral Resources: No significant mineral resources have been identified within the project area and there are no existing mineral extraction operations or facilities in the area. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Population/Housing: The project involves construction of a parking structure to support the existing MCGC. The project does not involve the construction of housing, nor will it displace population or induce population growth. The project will not result in additional employees at the MCGC. There will be no impacts to population or housing as a result of this project. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

Recreation: The property is zoned Public/Semi-Public. No recreational uses exist on the property. The project is not population inducing and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other public recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated. The project does not include public recreational facilities, nor require the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

Utilities and Service Systems: Infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project site. No utility constraints or impacts are anticipated. The project would be accommodated by the City’s existing services and infrastructure as identified in the Urban Water Management Plan, and the Sewer and Storm Drain Master Plan for the Salinas District. Wastewater is treated at the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency treatment plant in Marina. According to the above-mentioned Master Plans, the treatment plant is not expected to reach capacity during the life of the proposed project. (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)


B. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Tony Mitre Project Manager


V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are

adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as

onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then

the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where

the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA

process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist

were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information

sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.


7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used

or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than

significance.


VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10)

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: Bordered by the Santa Lucia Mountains to the west, and the Gabilan Mountain Range to the east, the topography in the City of Salinas is relatively flat and offers expansive views of both mountain ranges from its urban/agricultural edge. Nearly one quarter of Monterey County’s population resides in Salinas. The City is also the County seat, and therefore the location of many County facilities. Salinas is a community of neighborhoods, each distinct in its architecture and character. New housing developments continue to prosper in the northeast portion of the City while infill and redevelopment projects enhance the downtown. Currently the downtown area offers a mix of restaurants, retail establishments, office buildings, residential properties, and government facilities. Historic buildings reside next to contemporary buildings, their designs complimenting one another. It is this unique blend of architectural styles and eras that has created a downtown that is both visually and physically interesting. The project site is situated in an older, moderately dense area of Salinas, surrounded by office buildings of mixed age, City and County Government buildings, and converted residences. The aesthetic character of the site itself is governmental/institutional. Refer to Figure 4 for photographs of the existing condition of the project site and surrounding areas. 1(a), (b): No Impact. A scenic vista is a view of natural, environmental, historic and/or architectural features possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. Views of the Santa Lucia and Gabilan Mountains could be considered scenic vistas. Implementation of the proposed project would not impair these views since surrounding buildings already obscure these views from the project site. Scenic vista views from surrounding buildings, such as the adjacent law office building, have the potential to be impacted by the proposed parking structure. However, these views are considered private views and are not


protected under the City’s General Plan visual resources policies and zoning regulations. The project is not within a state scenic highway and would not damage any scenic resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources within a state scenic highway. 1(c): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Three-dimensional conceptual renderings of the proposed parking structure and its relationship to the existing surrounding environment were prepared by PMC (refer to Figures 3a and 3b). The parking structure would have five levels and would be approximately 57 feet high. Shade and shadow would obviously be most pronounced during the early morning and late afternoon hours as the sun is rising and setting. Based on surrounding land uses, the Lombardo and Gilles building immediately south will experience a shade effect on the north side of the building. The offices and limited residential uses across Capitol Street to the west could receive less early morning sunlight in the immediate shadow of the structure; however, this effect is not considered a significant environmental effect, as these uses are primarily office, only the side of the nearby apartment building (with limited windows) would face the new structure, and existing roadways provide ample separation between buildings to limit the effects of shadow. Similarly, the Californian building would not be particularly sensitive to evening shadow caused by the structure. No significance thresholds are therefore triggered. See Figures 6a and 6b, which provide photo simulations of the structure within existing site conditions. It is important to note that the photo simulations are intended to demonstrate the relative scale of a 550 space parking structure in the context of the existing environment. The ultimate exterior treatment of the structure will be a product of the final design. There is a potentially historic residential neighborhood with Victorian era homes south of the project site. Several medium sized street trees surround the perimeter of the site. Given the separation of this area created by office buildings, the existing parking use of the existing site, and the general mix of uses in this urban neighborhood, a multi-level parking structure would not significantly affect or disrupt the character of the area. The structure would be of a size and mass larger than the residential uses to the southeast and southwest, but comparable to other nearby uses such as offices, the newspaper, Government Center and other County buildings. Existing private views toward the government campus area would be affected by project implementation for the surrounding residential and professional uses in the neighborhood, which consist of smaller buildings of lower height relative to the proposed parking structure. None of these neighborhood views are considered particularly scenic or significant, and are of urban character. However, some obstruction would occur that could result in dramatic changes in the existing visual setting, particularly for the law office building. Due to the relatively small project site, the structure would require five levels (five plus a ¾ level below grade). At a height of up to 57 feet, the project would permanently affect private window views from the north side of the law office building located on the site’s southern boundary. The new structure would dominate views northward from this building. Obstruction could occur from the law office building’s west-facing windows as well, depending upon the structure’s ultimate footprint. In order to mitigate the obstruction of these private views, the project would be required to implement the following architectural and design treatments:


Mitigation Measure #1 (Project Design): In order to minimize aesthetic impacts within the project vicinity, the project shall incorporate materials, colors, designs, and alley improvements in order to provide an aesthetically-pleasing and visually interesting treatment that will soften the visual impact as seen from the adjacent law office building. Final design package submittals shall be reviewed by County of Monterey Architectural Services to ensure that the project is designed in such a way as to blend with the neighborhood in terms of architectural style, colors and scale, and to provide a visual improvement to the area, through design and hardscape/landscape features, compared to the existing surface parking lot. Prior to construction, all such improvements and features shall be demonstrated in the final design package submittal approved by the County and shall also be reviewed by the City of Salinas for consistency with the City’s design guidelines and regulations. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce impacts to the existing visual setting of the site and surroundings to a less than significant level by incorporating specific design features into the project. 1(d): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site currently contains street and security lighting for the parking lot use. The proposed parking structure would introduce some new lighting sources, especially for security purposes, that could represent a change over the property’s current lighting use. Exterior and walkway lighting would consist of pole top luminaries, and directional shielding. Lighting would be designed to be directed downward and away from adjacent properties. Further, lighting levels would be designed to be non-intrusive and consistent with existing lighting in the vicinity of the project, as well as to conform to City lighting and building standards. In order to ensure that project lighting will be consistent with City of Salinas lighting standards and compatible with surrounding land uses, the project would be required to implement the following exterior lighting measures: Mitigation Measure #2 (Lighting): In order to minimize the project’s light and glare impacts, outdoor lighting shall employ cutoff optics that allows no light emitted above a horizontal plane running through the bottom of the fixture. All building-mounted and freestanding lights (including the fixture, base, and pole) shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-five feet in height, and within public areas, shall be designed at a pedestrian scale. Lighting adjacent to other property or public rights-of-way shall be directed away and shielded to reduce light trespass. No portion of the lamp (including the lens and reflectors) shall extend below the bottom edge of the lighting fixture nor be visible from an adjacent property or public right-of-way. Mirror or highly reflective glass shall not significantly increase glare visible from adjacent streets and property or pose a hazard for motor vehicles. Final design package submittals, including a point to point lighting plan showing horizontal illuminance in footcandles, shall be reviewed by County of Monterey Architectural Services to ensure that the project lighting is designed to be architecturally integrated with the building design and highlights architectural details of the building. Prior to construction, lighting features shall be demonstrated in the final design package submittal approved by the County and shall also be reviewed by the City of Salinas for consistency with the City’s lighting guidelines and regulations. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level by incorporating specific lighting measures in the project design.

Site View - BEFORE

Site View - AFTER

Source: PMC, December 2007

Figure 6aSite View 1 - Before and After

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - 2

7-013

2\Fig

ures\

Figure

6a - S

ite Vi

ew 1

- Befo

re an

d Afte

r.ai, D

ecem

ber 2

007

Site View - BEFORE

Site View - AFTER

Source: PMC, December 2007

Figure 6bSite View 3 - Before and After

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - 2

7-013

2\Fig

ures\

Figure

6b - S

ite Vi

ew 3

- Befo

re an

d Afte

r.ai, D

ecem

ber 2

007


2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: See previous Sections II. A (Project Description) and B (Environmental Setting) and Section IV. A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced. 3. AIR QUALITY Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)

c) Result in significant construction-related air quality impacts? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)

d) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)


3. AIR QUALITY Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)

f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: An Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared for the project by AMBIENT (December 6, 2007). According to the analysis, the proposed project is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). Dispersion of air pollution in an area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, coupled with atmospheric stability. Existing air quality concerns within the NCCAB, within which the City of Salinas is located, are primarily related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (i.e., ozone and particulate matter); exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and odors; as well as, increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Pollutants subject to federal air quality standards are referred to as “criteria” pollutants because the U.S. EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead, and airborne particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Criteria air pollutants, common sources, and associated effects are summarized in Table 1.


Table 1 Criteria Air Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects

Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects Particulate Matter (PM) Airborne solid particle and liquid particles. Grouped into 2 categories: “Coarse Particles” (PM10) –from 2.5 to 10 microns in diameter. “Fine Particles” (PM2.5) –less than 2.5 microns in diameter.

Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

Ozone (O3) (Smog) A colorless or bluish gas

Formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrous oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline storage and transport, solvents, paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, coughing and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some textiles and dyes.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless, nonflammable gas

Formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned; when gasoline is extracted from oil; or when metal is extracted from ore. Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, metal processing facilities, locomotives, large ships, and fuel combustion in diesel engines.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can damage marble, iron and steel; damage crops and natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas.

Formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely;’ a component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas

Fuel combustion in motor vehicles and industrial sources. Motor vehicles; electric utilities, and other sources that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. Contributes to global warming, and nutrient overloading which deteriorates water quality. Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead Metallic element

Metal refineries, smelters, battery manufacturers, iron and steel producers, use of leaded fuels by racing and aircraft industries.

Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and kidney damage, neurological disorders, cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants, and aquatic ecosystems.

Source: ARB 2007, CAPCOA 2007

Sources of criteria air pollutants within the City of Salinas are regulated by several jurisdictions including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the MBUAPCD. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although U.S. EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be


more stringent. The federal and state standards for the criteria pollutants, as well as other state regulated air pollutants are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Standards (b, c)

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards (a, c)

Primary (d) Secondary (e)

1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) - - Ozone (O3)

8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/ m3) 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3)

AAM 20 μg/ m3 - - Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 μg/ m3 150 μg/ m3

AAM 12 μg/ m3 15 μg/ m3Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour No Standard 35 μg/ m3

Same as Primary

1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/ m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/ m3)

8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/ m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/ m3) Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/ m3) –

None

AAM 0.030 ppm (56 μg/ m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/ m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm (338 μg/ m3) –

Same as Primary

AAM – 0.03 ppm (80 μg/ m3) –

24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/ m3) 0.14 ppm (365 μg/ m3) –

3-hour – – 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/ m3)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/ m3) – –

30-day Average 1.5 μg/ m3 – – Lead

Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/ m3 Same as Primary

Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/ m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/ m3)

Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/ m3)

Visibility-Reducing Particle Matter 8-hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer —visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07—30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70%.

No Federal

Standards

a. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, PM (PM10 and PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/ m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of daily concentrations, average over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

c. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses. d. The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public health. e. The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean Source: ARB 2007; US EPA 2007


Ambient air quality in the Salinas Valley portion of Monterey County can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the MBUAPCD at its Salinas monitoring station. Ambient air quality has been estimated to exceed the state PM10 standard at the Salinas monitoring station on approximately five occasions during the past three years of available data. No other exceedances of state or federal AAQS for other pollutants have been measured at the Salinas monitoring station over the past three years. Ozone concentrations within the basin are generally decreasing. In the past, most ozone within the basin was the result of pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area. With local growth, ozone air pollution from local sources is increasing. Table 3 summarizes the last 3 years of published data from the Salinas-#3 monitoring stations.

Table 3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data

Salinas #3 Air Monitoring Station

POLLUTANT STANDARDS 2004 2005 2006

Ozone (O3) Maximum concentration, 1-hr/8-hr period (ppm) Number of days state standard exceeded Number of days federal standard (1-hr/8-hr) exceeded

0.077/0.070

0 0/0

0.069/0.057

0 0/0

0.066/0.057

0 0/0

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum concentration, 1-hr/8-hr period (ppm) Number of days state (1-hr/8-hr) standard exceeded Number of days federal (1-hr/8-hr) standard exceeded

1.9/1.21

0/0 0/0

2.1/0.86

0/0 0/0

2.5/1.04

0/0 0/0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) Number of days state standard exceeded Annual arithmetic mean (AAM) AAM exceed federal standard?

0.1394

0 0.007

0

0.052

0 0.008

0

0.067

0 0.007

0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) Number of days state standard exceeded (measured/estimated) Number of days federal standard exceeded

44.0 0/0 0

36.0 0/0 0

49.0 1/5.8

0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) Number of days federal standard exceeded *

22.3

0

16.2

0

13.0

0 AAM=Annual Arithmetic Mean; μg/m3=Micrograms per Cubic Meter; ppm=Parts per Million Source: ARB 2007


An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation(s) was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Unclassified designations indicate insufficient data is available to determine attainment status. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the NCCAB is currently designated attainment for the recently established eight-hour ozone federal AAQS. The NCCAB is designated either attainment or unclassified for the remaining federal AAQS. Under the California Clean Air Act, the basin is designated as a nonattainment transitional area for the state ozone AAQS. The NCCAB is also designated a nonattainment area for the state PM10 AAQS. The attainment status of the NCCAB is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 NCCAB Attainment Status Designations

Pollutant National Designation State Designation

Ozone, 1 hour Not Applicable Nonattainment/Transitional Ozone, 8 hour Unclassified/Attainment Not Applicable

PM10 Unclassified Nonattainment PM2.5 Unclassified Attainment

Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide Unclassified Attainment Sulfates Not Applicable Attainment

Lead Not Applicable Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide Not Applicable Unclassified

Visibility Reducing Particles Not Applicable Unclassified Sources: ARB 2007

For the purpose of this analysis, the following applicable thresholds of significance from the MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used to determine if the proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact:

• Short-Term Increases in Regional Criteria Pollutants. Construction impacts would be significant if the proposed project would emit greater than 82 pounds per day (lbs/day) of PM10, or will cause a violation of PM10 National or State AAQS at nearby receptors;

• Long-Term Increases in Regional Criteria Pollutants. Regional (operational) impacts would be significant if the project generates direct and indirect emissions of ROG or NOX that exceed 137 lbs/day. Emissions of PM10 would be significant if the project would exceed 82 lbs/day or if the project would contribute to local PM10 concentrations that exceed Ambient Air Quality Standards. Emissions of SOX would be significant if the project generates direct emissions of greater than 150 lbs/day;

• Increases in Local Mobile-Source CO Concentrations. Local mobile-source impacts would be significant if the project generates direct emissions of greater than 550 lbs/day of CO or if the project would contribute to local CO concentrations that exceed the State


Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour. Indirect emissions are typically considered to include mobile sources that access the project site but generally emit off-site; direct emissions typically include sources that emitted on-site (e.g., stationary sources, on-site mobile equipment);

• Increases in Toxic Air Contaminants. TAC impacts would be significant if the project would expose the public to substantial levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual would exceed 10 in 1 million and/or so that ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual; or

• Increases in Odorous Emissions. Odor impacts would be significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

3(a), (b): Less than Significant Impact. In accordance with MBUAPCD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, project emissions which are not consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) would be considered to have a cumulative regional air quality impact. Consistency of population-related projects with the AQMP is assessed by comparing the projected population growth associated with the project to population forecasts adopted by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). These population projections are used to generate emission forecasts upon which the AQMP is based. The proposed project would serve existing nearby governmental land uses. For air quality assessment, the vehicle trips to and from the proposed parking structure have already been assigned to existing nearby land uses. Employee trips are already occurring in the immediate vicinity around the MCGC; the parking structure will direct those trips to a single location. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in an increase in vehicle trips that would conflict with emissions inventories used for air quality planning purposes within the region. In addition, no stationary sources of emissions would be associated with the proposed parking structure. Any emissions associated with the daily maintenance of the proposed facility are anticipated to be minor and similar to those associated with the existing parking lot. For these reasons, long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed project would not be anticipated to exceed MBUAPCD’s significance thresholds and, therefore, would be considered less than significant. For these same reasons, increases in greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s cumulative contribution to regional air quality conditions and global climate change would also be considered less than significant. 3(c): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but possess the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The construction and development of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading and excavation, paving, the application of architectural coatings, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities.


The MBUAPCD has determined that construction activities that involve minimal earth moving over an area of 8.1 acres, or more, could result in a potentially significant temporary air quality impacts, if not mitigated. Construction activities that require more extensive site preparation (e.g., grading and excavation) may result in significant unmitigated impacts if the area of disturbance were to exceed 2.2 acres per day. Equipment to be used during the construction of the proposed parking structure has not yet been identified. The project proposes a partial level below existing grade, which would require excavation and off-haul of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material. The project proposes to deposit excavated soil material at the County’s Laurel Maintenance Facility property, where the material could be spread, compacted or used for fill. According to the MBUAPCD, activities involving minimal ground-disturbance typically generate an average of approximately 10 lbs/day/acre while excavation and earthmoving activities generate about 38 lbs/day/acre. Based on the more conservative emission rate (38 lbs/day/acre), the overall size of the project site (i.e., approximately 1.2 acres), and proposed excavation and off-haul (10,000 cubic yards), construction activities would generate approximately 45.6 lbs/day of PM10, which would be below the MBUAPCD’s significance threshold of 82 lbs/day. Furthermore, the overall size of the project site would not exceed the MBUAPCD’s construction screening criteria of either 8.1 acres for minimal site preparation activities or 2.2 acres for construction-related activities involving extensive site preparation. As a result, short-term construction related emissions would not be anticipated to exceed applicable air quality standards. However, localized concentrations of dust could potentially occur that may be a nuisance to occupants and employees located in nearby land uses and would require the following mitigation: Mitigation Measure #3 (Short-Term Construction Emissions): In order to minimize short-term construction emissions, the project shall implement the following MBUAPCD-recommended mitigation measures during grading and construction activities. The County’s designated construction contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the

type of operation, soil and wind exposure;

• Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);

• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days);

• Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed areas;

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles, such as dirt, sand, etc;

• Cover inactive storage piles;


• Sweep streets daily, with water sweepers, if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public streets;

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;

• Construction equipment shall not be left idling for periods longer than 5 minutes when not in use; and

• Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding emissions-related complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce fugitive dust emissions associated with individual construction activities by approximately 4 to 90 percent, with overall fugitive dust emission reductions of approximately 50 percent, depending on the activities conducted. Mitigated construction-generated emissions would not exceed the MBUAPCD’s significance threshold of 82 lbs/day. With restriction of onsite areas of disturbance and implementation of recommended dust-control measures, predicted concentrations at nearby receptors would not be anticipated to exceed applicable standards. As a result, mitigation of this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. 3(d): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The NCCAB is designated as a nonattainment transitional area for the state ozone AAQS, as well as the state PM10 AAQS. The NCCAB is currently designated attainment or unclassified for the remaining state AAQS, as well as the national AAQS. As discussed in the analysis above, short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed MBUAPCD significance thresholds. Further, long-term operation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant contribution to localized concentration of carbon monoxide that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards. However, short-term construction-related activities may result in increased levels of airborne-particulate matter that could adversely affect nearby receptors. Uncontrolled increases in airborne-particulate matter could contribute, on a cumulative basis, to localized concentrations at nearby receptors and existing non-attainment conditions. The implementation of Mitigation Measure #3 (Short-Term Construction Emissions) would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. 3(e): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Exposure to localized concentrations of pollutants could potentially occur during the construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. Construction-related pollutants are primarily associated with increased levels of fugitive dust and diesel-exhaust particulate matter from onsite equipment. Long-term operational increases in localized pollutant concentration would be primarily associated with increases of carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from increased vehicle use, as vehicle trips are concentrated around the project entrances and intersections. Short-term and long-term localized air quality impacts that could potentially affect nearby sensitive receptors are discussed separately, as follows: Short-Term Localized Construction Emissions


Diesel-exhaust particulate matter (DPM) was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the ARB in 1998. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of DPM emissions during construction associated with the use of off-road diesel equipment. Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. The calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically calculated based on a 70-year period of exposure. Assuming that construction activities were to occur over an approximate one-year period, construction activities would constitute less than 0.01 percent of the total exposure period typically applied when calculating cancer risks. Because the use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and of short duration DPM generated by project construction, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million for nearby receptors. As a result, long-term health impacts associated with short-term exposure to construction-generated TAC would be considered less than significant. However, as identified above, construction of the proposed project may result in increased localized concentrations of fugitive dust that could adversely affect local air quality. The implementation of Mitigation Measure #3 (Short-Term Construction Emissions) would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Long-Term Localized Operational Emissions Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the long-term operation of any major emission sources of odors or TACs. As a result, exposure of nearby receptors to increased emissions of odors and TACs would be considered less than significant. However, potential increases in onsite vehicle activity, as well as potential redistribution of vehicle traffic on area roadways, may result in increases in localized concentrations of mobile-source carbon monoxide (CO). Mobile-source emissions of CO are a direct function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Under specific meteorological and operational conditions, such as near areas of heavily congested vehicle traffic, CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels. Enclosed areas, such as parking structures, may also be a source of elevated concentrations of CO. Potential increases in localized concentrations of CO at nearby roadway intersections, as well as within the proposed parking structure, are discussed separately, as follows: Roadway Intersections Modeling of mobile-source CO concentrations is typically recommended for signalized roadway intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or F). Unsignalized intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service do not typically have sufficient traffic volumes, such that projected unacceptable levels of service at these intersections would typically result in localized concentrations of CO that would exceed applicable standards. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle delay at nearby intersections. For both project Access Alternatives 1 and 2, signalized intersections located in the project area would operate at LOS B, or better, under both near-term and future cumulative conditions. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO at nearby roadway intersections (as mitigated) that would exceed applicable standards and impacts would be considered less than significant.


Parking Structure The starting, traveling and idling of vehicles within the proposed parking structure would have the potential for internal air quality impacts. A majority of emissions associated with parking structures are typically associated with the initial starting of the vehicle. Vehicles starting in what is referred to as “cold-start” mode (i.e., with the engine cold) typically generate higher levels of emissions than those starting in “hot-start” mode, particularly during the colder winter months. Various standards have been established pertaining to interior CO concentrations that are applicable to enclosed parking structures. In particular, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) limit CO concentrations to a level to 35 ppm for a one-hour period of exposure and to 9 ppm for an eight-hour period. The ASHRAE standards (i.e., ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-1989) requires the ventilation of spaces (such as parking garages) to prevent accumulation of contaminants that are hazardous to people’s health. The ASHRAE standards are generally consistent with the NAAQS (refer to Table 2). To ensure a conservative analysis, predicted concentrations within the proposed parking structure were compared with the stricter CAAQS for CO (i.e., 20 and 9 ppm, respectively) for determination of impact significance. Predicted CO concentrations within the proposed parking structure were calculated using the Caline4 dispersion model. Modeling was conducted assuming that all parking stalls within the parking structure would be emptied within a one-hour period and that 100 percent of the vehicles were started within the garage under “cold start” mode during winter operating conditions. Predicted maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations for the proposed parking structure alternatives are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Predicted Mobile-Source Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

Parking Garage Maximum Concentration (ppm)

Alternative 1-Hour 8-Hour

1 5.1 3.0

2 4.2 2.4

CAAQS: 20.0 9.0 Predicted concentrations were calculated using the Caline4 computer program. To ensure a conservative analysis, background concentrations were based on the highest measured value obtained from the nearest ambient air quality monitoring station for the last three years of available data (i.e., 2.5 and 1.2 ppm, respectively). 8-hour concentrations assume a persistence factor of 0.7.

Based on the modeling conducted, predicted maximum CO concentrations within the parking garage would not be anticipated to exceed applicable air quality standards. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in predicted mobile-source CO concentrations within the proposed parking structure that would exceed applicable air quality standards. Therefore, these impacts would be considered less than significant.


3(f): Less than Significant Impact. Parking structures for light-duty vehicles are not considered major sources of odorous emissions, nor would the long-term operation of the proposed facility result in the operation of any onsite stationary sources that would generate odorous emissions. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in objectionable odors that would adversely affect people living or working in the area. Construction activities would result in diesel-exhaust emissions that may be objectionable to some individuals. However, because the operation of diesel-powered equipment would be short-term and sporadic and given that emissions typically dissipate rapidly with increased distance from the source, short-term increases in odors from construction activities would be considered less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7. 8)

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)


Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: See previous Sections II. A (Project Description) and B (Environmental Setting) and Section IV. A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13)

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13)

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13)

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: Prior to the arrival of Spanish soldiers and missionaries, the Salinas area was home to the Costanoan Indians, which followed a general hunting and gathering subsistence pattern. While the Salinas Valley remained generally unpopulated under Spanish rule, there were small settlements around the missions. Salinas was formally created after Mexico seceded from Spain in 1822 and began granting rancho land to settlers. In the 1850s, two of these ranchos, the Rancho Nacional and the Rancho Sausal, formed what is today the City of Salinas. Named for a nearby salt marsh, Salinas has existed as a town since 1856. With its beginnings in wheat, barley, and cattle ranching, the town began to grow in the late 1860s when the fertility of the valley was publicized. Salinas became the seat of Monterey County in 1872, coinciding with the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and incorporated in 1874. During the 1920s, a major change in agriculture occurred with the introduction of lettuce and other row crops. In the years that followed, construction of irrigation ditches, and the availability of electric power had significant effects on agricultural production in the area allowing marshland to be converted into farmland. Currently, much of the land in the planning area surrounding the City is in agricultural use and is not identified for urban development. Area policy encourages growth in prescribed areas, increasing the City’s visibility as a thriving urban center, while maintaining its agriculturally driven economic base. 5(a): No Impact. The project site currently contains no resources of potential historic significance. A Victorian house is being restored to the northwest, diagonally across the intersection of West Alisal and Capitol Streets. Older, potentially historic residential


neighborhoods and individual homes exist southeast and southwest of the site. The Old Jail is directly across West Alisal Street from the project site. Given the eclectic mix of uses in this urban environment, a parking structure in this location would not be anticipated to affect the historic context of the area or nearest individual properties. Further, potential historical resources near the project site are buffered by existing roadways. Implementation of the project is not expected to alter or remove significant historical resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts to historic resources. 5(b), (c), (d): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is in a developed, urbanized area disturbed by prior and current uses. The Salinas General Plan shows the downtown Salinas area as a low archaeological sensitivity zone, therefore no significant archeological or cultural resources would be expected at the site. However, destruction or disturbance of undiscovered resources, whether planned or inadvertent, during proposed grading and construction activities is possible and would be considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are required: Mitigation Measure #4 (Discovery of Cultural Resources): If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological, historical or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources), work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it. The Monterey County RMA - Planning Department and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery.

Mitigation Measure #5 (Discovery of Human Remains): In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Monterey County has determined whether the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. This is in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resource Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a “Native American Most Likely Descendent” to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods.

Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce the potential impact to undiscovered cultural resources and human remains to a less than significant level by halting operations in the event of discovery in order to make an assessment and recommend appropriate action.


6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

iv) Landslides? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: The primary geologic component of the Salinas Valley is granite. During past geologic activity three subsequent layers have settled on the Valley’s bedrock. The first layer is composed of shale and sandstone, the second is composed of marine sediments, and the most recent layer is composed of alluvium deposits, terraces and fans. Alluvial deposits along with traces of underlying soils have contributed to the high agricultural productivity of soils in the Salinas Valley. The City of Salinas rests on nearly 1,800 feet of alluvium. The City of Salinas has a geologic setting that results in few geologic hazards, other than those presented by seismic activity. USGS mapping has identified the City, including the project site,


as an area of “least landslide and erosion susceptibility.” The City of Salinas is relatively flat with slopes ranging from 0-10%. The project site is located on a previously disturbed, level parcel of land outside of the 100-year flood zone. A construction-level geotechnical evaluation is underway to assist with site-specific engineering decisions. 6(a)(i), (iii), (iv): No Impact. As identified by USGS maps and the Monterey County Geographic Information System, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, or within areas susceptible to seismically-induced liquefaction or landslides. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these geological impacts. 6(a)(ii): Less than Significant Impact. There are several active faults in the central coastal area of California. Many of these are capable of producing moderate to major earthquakes. The San Andreas Fault poses the greatest threat, with a maximum predicted earthquake magnitude of 8.5 on the Richter scale. The Richter scale measures the magnitude, or total amount of energy released in an earthquake. With increasing magnitude (i.e. larger earthquakes) ground motions are stronger, last longer, and are felt over larger areas. Earthquake intensity is a measure of the effects of earthquake ground motions on people and buildings. Earthquake intensity is often more useful than magnitude when discussing the damaging effects of earthquakes. The most common intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI scale), which ranges from I to XII. The project area is located in a zone of moderate seismic activity. As such, potential ground shaking from the San Andreas Fault is expected to occur during the economic life of the project. The severity of ground shaking will depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the maximum acceleration of the wave and the nature of the bedrock below. The project site is not located within the immediate proximity of known active faults. Therefore, the project would not be subject to unusual or unique seismic conditions compared to those found elsewhere in the region. Furthermore, the project would be required to conform to all current construction standards as set forth in the California Building Code and Uniform Building Code, which are intended to protect life and structure from seismic hazards. Therefore, project exposure to strong seismic ground-shaking would be considered less than significant. 6(b): Less than Significant Impact. The project has the potential to result in soil erosion due to estimated grading and cut of approximately 10,000 cubic yards. The project has been designed to minimize soil erosion impacts through implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) measures. Further, construction and grading activities would be required to comply with the Air Quality Guidelines, including implementation of the standard Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) measures such as watering erosion control, and dust control. Finally, the project would implement erosion control measures consistent with Chapter 16.12, Monterey County Erosion Control Ordinance, as part of grading and building operations. Therefore, soil erosion impacts would be considered less than significant. 6(c), (d), (e): No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and previously disturbed. Site soils are considered to be of low risk for instability or expansiveness. Wastewater for the project would be disposed via the City’s sewer system. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to unstable or expansive soils.


7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13)

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project by Caprock Geology (November 28, 2007). According to the assessment, the project site is located in Monterey County in the downtown area of the City of Salinas. The site is bordered by West Alisal, Capitol, and Cayuga Streets and is approximately four blocks from both Highway 68 and Highway 183.


Surrounding land uses are primarily urban in nature and include City Government and Services, various offices, and a mix of converted residential properties. To the north, across West Alisal Street, is a parking lot on the western portion of the block and the Monterey County Jail on the eastern section of the block, with the Monterey County Court House further to the east. To the west, across Capitol Street are several office buildings housing the firms of Lavorato, House, Chilton, Larorato; and Bailer, Lavorato and Darling. To the east, across Cayuga Street is a parking lot with The Salinas Californian Building further east. To the south, across the alley, are several more office buildings including the large office building housing the law firm of Lombardo and Gilles. In general compliance with ASTM Voluntary Standard of Practice E 1527-05, a search of selected Federal and State government hazardous material databases was conducted for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7(a): Less than Significant Impact. Some potential hazards are expected during project construction including the transport, use, and exposure to small amounts of flammable materials and reactive chemicals, heat stress, chemical exposures, hazards from energized electrical equipment, biological hazards, moving equipment, and noise and vibration and risks during excavations. Construction firms and workers are protected by worker safety regulations of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and best management practices are required to be implemented to ensure safety during all phases of project development. Operational impacts from the generation of hazards are expected to be minimal as the project itself would be implemented on a previously disturbed urban site. Therefore, these impacts are expected to be less than significant. 7(b), (c): Less than Significant Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a Caprock representative visited the project site to assess current site utilization and inspect the property for signs of possible surface contamination. The following determinations were made based on the site visit: Buildings - There are no buildings on the subject site. Storage Tanks - No above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) or under-ground storage tanks (USTs) were observed on the property. Chemical Storage - There was no evidence of chemical storage observed at the site. Potential Sources of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - There are no utility poles on or adjacent to the subject property that support pole-mounted transformers that could serve as sources of PCBs. Utility Structures, Roads, Disposal Systems, Water Wells - The property is in an area served by public water and sewage. Overhead power lines provide electricity to the neighboring properties. Environmental Releases and Spills - The entire subject property is paved or covered in asphalt or


cement. No releases or spills were observed on the property. Wetlands - The subject property is not in any designated wetlands areas and has no effect on same. Alisal Slough is approximately ½ mile northwest of the property. Asbestos - The subject property has been vacant or a parking lot since at least 1971 according to aerial photos of the site, therefore it is unlikely that the site has been contaminated with asbestos containing materials. According to Sanborn maps of the area the property had dwellings on it from at least 1900 until 1964. Radon - The Federal Radon Zone for Monterey County is 2, which indicates an indoor average level between 2 and 4 pCi/L (picoCuries per liter of air). A more detailed radon survey was not a part of this ESA. A recent study by the Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) found that of 34 states studied for prevalence of radon problems, California ranked near the bottom at 32. Lead Based Paint (LBP) - The lead based paint ban went into effect in 1978. The subject property has been vacant or a parking lot since at least 1971. According to Sanborn maps of the area the property had dwellings on it from at least 1900 until 1964, therefore it is possible that the dwellings were painted with lead based paint. It is possible that minor lead based paint resides in the soil at the site. If land use changes are expected, lead based paint samples of the soil may be warranted. Further, no adverse effects were apparent on the adjoining properties that would contribute hazardous waste/material and/or petroleum contamination to the property. However, there are several sites less than ¼ of a mile away that may contribute to contamination at the project site. The database search noted the presence of 2 sites within 1/8 of the project site of potential concern. Discussion of these sites follows: Old County Jail - 142 West Alisal Street. This location is listed in the RCRA-LQG database. This site is at approximately the same elevation as the subject site and is only 210 feet away. The location is identified as a large quantity generator of hazardous wastes. However, no violations were noted, therefore this site is not expected to impact the subject site. County of Monterey - 240 Church Street - This location is listed in the HAZNET, and SWEEPS UST database. This location is identified as disposing of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and material containing PCBs, disposing of empty containers of 30 gallons or more of hazardous materials, disposing of other organic solids, unspecified oil-containing waste, and asbestos containing materials. This site is listed in the SWEEPS database as being the location of a 5000 and 2500 gallon diesel fuel tank. No information is provided for the 5000 tank. The 2500 gallon tank shows a reference date of 05/19/93. No spills or violations are noted related to these tanks. This site is at a lower elevation than the subject site and approximately 632 feet from the subject site. It is not expected to impact the subject site. The database search noted the presence of 4 sites within 1/4 of the project site of potential concern. Discussion of these sites follows:


Mission Linen Supply - 121 Gabilan Street - This site is listed in the LUST and Cortese databases. The site is the location of four gasoline tanks and two stoddard solvent tanks which were removed in 1988. Heavy contamination (Benzene, MTBE, PCE, TCE) was found on-site and is migrating off-site in both soil and groundwater. Investigation and remedial action is ongoing and under the direction of the State Water Resources Control Board. According to Bronwyn Feikert of the Monterey County Department of Health (MCDH), contamination from this site is unlikely to impact the subject property. Also, the subject site is at an elevation lower than the Mission Linen Supply location making it unlikely that the contaminate will migrate to the site. Pacific Bell - 319 Salinas Street - This site is listed in the RCRA-SQG and FINDS database. No violations were noted. This site is at a location lower in elevation than the subject site making it unlikely that any contamination from this site would impact the subject site. Salinas Municipal Airport and City of Salinas Fire Department - 200 Lincoln Street - This site is listed in the HAZNET, HIST UST, CA FID UST, SWEEPS UST, and Cortese databases. According to the HIST UST database this site was the location of 5 USTs (12000 gallon premium gasoline, 12000 gallon diesel fuel, 500 gallon waste oil, 12000 unleaded fuel, and an unknown 300 gallon tank). This location has taken approximately 14.75ACM to a landfill. This site is more than 1000 feet from the subject site and is an elevation lower than the subject site, therefore it is not likely to impact the subject site. Struve and Laporte Funeral Home - 41 West San Luis Street - This site is listed in the CA FID UST, HIST UST and SWEEPS UST database. Reportedly a 265 gallon motor vehicle fuel tank was located at this site. No violations or leads were reported and this site is more than 1100 feet from the subject site as well as being at an elevation lower than the subject site, therefore it is unlikely to impact the subject site. Based upon the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as described above, hazardous material impacts would be considered less than significant. 7(d), (e), (f), (g), (h): No Impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and is not on a list of hazardous material sites or near any airports. The project would not interfere with any emergency response plans or be at risk for wildland fires. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these hazards.


8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)


Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: The existing site is urban in nature and primarily consists of impervious surfaces (sidewalks, parking lots, etc.). The current stormwater drainage flows water from the paved areas to the City of Salinas stormwater drainage system. The site’s current drainage is adequate and is not prone to flooding. The City of Salinas stormwater system drains to the Monterey County Water Resource Agency (MCWRCA)’s Reclamation Ditch 1665 that is located approximately 3.5 miles west of the city limits. The MCWRCA engineered the channel in 1917 and it is the primary drainage for the City. The City developed a Sewage and Drainage Master Plan in 1988; this plan did not identify any problems with the existing storm drain pipes. The City continues to update and evaluate this plan. 8(a), (b), (c), (d): No Impact. Implementation of the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern for the site. The project would be designed to be consistent with the requirements of Central Coast Water Basin Plan as well as the City of Salinas NPDES Permit for stormwater runoff. No groundwater would be accessed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these hydrological issues. 8(e), (f): Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in downtown Salinas. The site is relatively flat and urban in nature. The project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces onsite. Therefore, the post-project drainage will be similar to the existing pre-project conditions, and will not impact existing drainage patterns or the capacity of existing stormdrain systems. However, the project would result in an incremental increase in traffic and parked vehicles. Additional vehicles would result in additional pollutants within urban runoff, which typically consists of oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, and byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals). These pollutants accumulate during the dry season (May to October) and are released into storm water runoff at high concentration levels during the “first flush” storm event. Existing catch basins and storm drains are considered to be adequate to offset the minor increase in ground pollutants due to the incremental increase in vehicles. Further, the project would incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into its design as it relates to water capture and reuse. Specifically, non-parked stormwater runoff would be captured onsite and reused for landscape irrigation. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant. 8(g), (h), (i), (j): No Impact. The project site would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not expose structures to flooding. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these hydrological issues.


9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8)

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: The City of Salinas is a compact urban community situated within the northern portion of the Salinas Valley in Monterey County. The Salinas Valley is a highly productive agricultural area often referred to as the “Salad Bowl of the World,” and the City is surrounded by active fertile farmland on all sides. Located along U.S. Highway 101, Salinas is approximately ten miles inland of Monterey Bay and 40 miles south of San Jose. Neighboring communities include Aromas, located approximately 17 miles to the north and Gonzales, located approximately 17 miles to the south. 9(a), (c): No Impact. The proposed project site is within an existing urbanized area surrounded by a mix of land uses that are predominantly office and institutional in nature. The project will not physically divide an established community. The site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or similar plan. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these land use issues. 9(b): Less than Significant Impact. As County-owned property proposed to support government services, the site would not be subject to the City of Salinas zoning and building regulations even though the site is within the boundaries of the Salinas city limits. According to section 65402(b) of the Government Code, however, construction or authorization of a county building within the city limits requires the county to “submit and report upon” the proposal for the purposes of the city determining “conformity” with the City’s adopted General Plan. To this end, the County of Monterey is committed to working with City staff to avoid inconsistencies with City codes and standards. This would include consideration of City development guidelines as they pertain to landscaping features, parking lot orientation, lighting, and building massing and height, in order to maintain harmonious and consistent neighborhood design.

The site is designated as Public/Semi-Public (PS) by the City of Salinas General Plan and Municipal Code (Chapter 37 – Zoning). The project’s proposed use (“parking lots and structures”) would be conditionally allowed under this designation with a Conditional Use Permit under City regulations. According to Section 37-30.400 (Development Regulations and Design Standards), “development regulations and design standards for public/semipublic uses


shall be as specified by the required conditional use permit in accordance with Article VI, Division 8: Conditional Use Permits and or the required site plan review in accordance with Article VI, Division 5: Site Plan Review (see Table 37-30.180). The city planner, planning commission, and/or city council, as the case may be, shall be guided by those regulations and design standards of the zoning district within closest proximity or a zoning district intended for uses similar to those proposed in the PS district. For properties located in the future growth areas of the city as identified on Figure LU-1 (future growth area) of the general plan land use element, the NU districts design standards shall apply. In addition, all new public buildings and sites shall generally be designed to promote energy efficiency and safety.” According to Table 37-30.180 (Public/Semi-Public Development Regulations), there are no established criteria for lot size, structure setbacks, building height, landscaping, minimum distance between buildings, etc. except as would be approved pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit.

According to the City’s Municipal Code, surrounding zoning districts within the closest proximity should be used as a “guide” for evaluating PS district projects. Although surrounding zoning includes mixed office/residential (CO/R) zoning, the actual uses on three sides of the project include substantial structures in the form of the Government Center Administration Buildings, Californian newspaper building, and multi-story law offices. Though the proposed structure will be taller than most of these buildings, the structure does represent a compatible “transition” in height from surrounding development, consistent with the Code.

The project would be designed to be consistent with the land use character of the project site and its surroundings. The project and its location would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the surrounding public/commercial land uses. Please see other discussions (air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, noise, traffic, etc.) regarding the physical relationship between existing and proposed land uses. Further, the project would be designed to be consistent with the City’s development regulations for the site, especially as it relates to findings of consistency for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, land use impacts would be considered less than significant impact.

10. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: See previous Sections II. A (Project Description) and B (Environmental Setting) and Section IV. A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced.


11. NOISE Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12)

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12)

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12)

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12)

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the project by AMBIENT (December 6, 2007). According to the analysis, noise-sensitive land uses generally include those uses where exposure to noise would result in adverse effects, as well as uses where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Other noise-sensitive land uses include hospitals, convalescent facilities, parks, hotels, churches, libraries, and other uses where low interior noise levels are essential. Land uses located near the project site consist primarily of office-related uses, located to the north, south, east, and west of the project site. The nearest office building is located approximately 40 feet south of the project site. The nearest residential dwellings are located approximately 75 feet to the northwest, across West Alisal Street, and approximately 65 feet south of the project site along Capitol Street. An ambient noise survey was conducted on November 20, 2007 to document the existing noise environment at various locations within the project area. Measurements were conducted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) acoustical standards using a


Larson Davis model 820 sound-level meter positioned at a height of approximately 4.5 feet. Measured noise levels are summarized in Table 6.


Table 6 Ambient Noise Levels

Measured Noise Level (dBA)

Location

Primary Noise

Sources Leq Lmin Lmax

SE Boundary of Project Site, W. Alisal St. & Capitol St. Vehicular Traffic 60.4 51.4 79.3

NE Boundary of Project Site, W. Alisal St. & Cayuga St. Vehicular Traffic 65.5 50.7 84.8

SW Boundary of Project Site, Capitol St. & Auburn St. Vehicular Traffic 59.9 47.5 72.6

NW Boundary of Project Site, Cayuga St. & Auburn St. Vehicular Traffic 61.9 50.8 74.3

Noise measurements were conducted on November 20, 2007 using a Larson Davis Model 820 Type I sound-level meter. Based on short-term (i.e., 10-minute) measurements conducted during the daytime hours at approximately 25 feet from the near-travel-lane centerline.

Based on the monitoring conducted, daytime average-hourly noise levels in the project vicinity averaged approximately 60 to 66 dBA Leq, dependent on distance from area roadways. The dominant noise source identified during the survey was vehicle traffic on area roadways. Predicted existing traffic noise levels (in dBA CNEL) along area roadways and the corresponding distances to existing traffic noise contours are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 Existing Traffic Noise Levels

Predicted Noise Level (dBA Ldn/CNEL)

Distance to Contours (feet)

Roadway Segment

50 ft from Centerline

of Near Travel Lane 60 65 70

W. Alisal Street, West of Capitol Street 61.55 85.1 WR WR

W. Alisal Street, East of Capitol Street 60.97 78.1 WR WR

W. Alisal Street, West of Cayuga Street 60.97 78.1 WR WR

W. Alisal Street, East of Cayuga Street 61.09 79.5 WR WR

Capitol Street, North of W. Alisal Street 57.25 WR WR WR

Capitol Street, South of W. Alisal Street 50.32 WR WR WR

Capitol Street, North of Auburn Street 49.70 WR WR WR

Cayuga Street, South of W. Alisal Street 49.53 WR WR WR

Cayuga Street, North of Auburn Street 48.79 WR WR WR

Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on traffic information obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Modeled traffic noise levels and contour distances assume no natural or man-


made shielding (e.g., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings). WR = Within Roadway Right-of-Way

The following significance thresholds used for the assessment of noise-related impacts are based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas noise standards.

• Short-Term Noise Impacts. Short-term construction noise impacts would be considered significant if construction activities would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.);

• Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Receptors to Stationary-Source Noise. Long-term stationary-source noise impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses;

• Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Receptors to Transportation Noise. Long-term transportation noise impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed the City’s land use compatibility noise standards; or

• Contribution to Cumulative Noise Levels. Implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in a substantial contribution to projected future cumulative noise levels at either existing or proposed noise-sensitive receptors.

11(a), (c), (d): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Noise generated by the proposed project would occur during short-term construction and long-term operation. Noise-related impacts associated with short-term construction and long-term operations of the proposed project are discussed separately, as follows: Short-Term Increases in Construction Noise Construction of the proposed parking facility would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has found that the average noise levels associated with construction activities typically range from approximately 76 dBA to 84 dBA Leq, with intermittent individual equipment noise levels ranging from approximately 74 to 89 dBA Leq. Table 8 lists typical uncontrolled noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. In the event that pile drivers are required during the construction process, intermittent noise levels could reach levels of up to 101 dBA at 50 feet.

Table 8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source

Backhoe 80


Table 8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source

Compactor 82

Dozer 85

Grader 85

Loader 85

Truck 88

Air Compressor 81

Concrete Mixer 85

Concrete Pump 82

Concrete Vibrator 76

Crane, Mobile 83

Generator 81

Jack Hammer 88

Paver 89

Pile Driver (Impact) 101

Pile Driver (Sonic) 96

Pneumatic Tool 85

Pump 76

Roller 74

Saw 76

Sources: Federal Transit Administration 2006

Nearby noise-sensitive receptors consist predominantly of office uses, the nearest of which is located approximately 40 feet south of the project site. Assuming an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 20 dBA, predicted interior noise levels within this nearest office building could reach levels of up to approximately 64 dBA Leq. In the event that pile driving would be required, intermittent interior noise levels within this same structure could reach levels of approximately 80 dBA for brief periods of time. Noise levels within this range would be considered to result in increased levels of annoyance and potential disruption to occupants of nearby office buildings, particularly within offices that are located within line-of-sight of the


construction area. In addition, activities occurring during the more noise-sensitive nighttime hours may result in increased levels of annoyance and potential sleep disruption to occupants of nearby dwelling units, the nearest of which are located approximately 65 feet south of the project site. As a result, noise-generating construction activities would be considered to have a significant short-term impact and would require the following mitigation: Mitigation Measure #6 (Short-Term Construction Noise): The following measures shall be implemented by the County’s designated construction contractor during grading and construction activities in order to reduce short-term increases in construction noise. The Contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • Construction activities (excluding activities that would result in a safety concern to the public

or construction workers) shall be limited to between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;

• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation;

• When not in use, motorized construction equipment shall not be left idling for periods greater than 5 minutes;

• Temporary noise barriers, such as loaded vinyl curtains or plywood barriers, shall be constructed around the perimeter of the project site where noise is acute;

• Bored or screw pilings shall be used where feasible, dependent upon engineering constraints as alternatives to impact-driven piles. In the event that impact-driven piles are necessary for construction, the following additional measures shall be required:

• To reduce noise-related and vibration impacts to nearby land uses, impact-pile driving shall be limited to between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.; and

• The impact area of the pile driving mechanism will be shielded to the extent feasible by a temporary casing, wall or other noise attenuation method designed to block/absorb noise and separate the line of sight between the pile driver and the nearest sensitive receptors;

• Written notification of anticipated construction schedules shall be provided to businesses located in adjacent buildings. The notification shall include anticipated dates and hours of construction, as well as the name and phone number of a construction representative to be contacted with regard to noise-related questions and/or concerns.

Implementation of the above mitigation would limit construction activities to the less noise-sensitive daytime hours, which would reduce potential increases in levels of annoyance and sleep disruption to occupants of nearby residential dwellings. Additional measures, including the construction of temporary noise barriers, would reduce potential noise impacts to nearby office land uses. For instance, use of mufflers would reduce individual equipment noise levels by approximately 10 dBA. In the event that pile driving is required, the use of quieter pile driving technology, such as drilled or screwed pilings, would further reduce noise-related impacts to occupants of nearby buildings. Noise levels associated with drilled and screwed piling applications typically range from 80 to 85 dBA at approximately 50 feet. Impact-pile driving


activities, if required, would be limited to the less noise-sensitive evening hours, which would reduce noise-related impacts to nearby businesses, as well as occupants of nearby dwellings. The construction of noise barriers would result in further reductions in overall noise levels of approximately 5 dBA at ground-level locations. With implementation of these measures and given that construction-related activities would be short-term, increased levels of annoyance and potential disruption of activities occurring at nearby land uses would be substantially reduced to a less than significant level. Long-Term Increases in Operation Noise – Stationary Source Noise levels associated with parking structures typically include vehicle exhaust, brake and tire squeal, the opening and closing of doors and trunks, and the occasional sounding of car alarms. Maximum single-event noise levels associated with parking structures can reach approximately 92 dBA SEL at 50 feet for short periods of time. Intermittent noise levels associated with the proposed parking structure would be similar to those currently associated with the existing parking lot. However, given the increased number of vehicles that would be accommodated by the parking structure, potential increases in the number of intermittent noise events could contribute to overall increases in average-hourly noise levels at nearby land uses. Noise levels associated with the proposed parking garage would likely be greatest during the peak commute hours, when increased levels of vehicle activity would be anticipated. Adjacent land uses consist predominantly of office uses, the nearest of which is located approximately 40 feet south of the proposed parking structure. Predicted noise levels at this nearest offsite land use were calculated in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology for assessing noise levels generated by parking structures. Based on the modeling conducted, predicted peak-hour noise levels at the nearest adjacent structure would be 47 dBA Leq. In comparison to ambient noise levels, which range from approximately 60 to 65 dBA Leq depending on proximity to area roadways, the proposed parking structure would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels at nearby land uses. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant. Long-Term Increases in Operational Noise – Traffic Ambient noise levels in the project area are influenced by vehicular traffic on area roadways. The FHWA roadway noise prediction model was used to predict traffic noise levels along primarily affected roadway segments. Predicted noise levels were calculated for existing conditions, with and without implementation of the proposed project, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Predicted increases in traffic noise levels for project Access Alternatives 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively.

Table 9 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Parking Garage Alternative 1

Roadway Segment

Predicted Noise Level at 50 ft from Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA Ldn/CNEL)1


Existing Without Project

Existing With Project Difference Significant?2

W. Alisal Street, West of Capitol Street 61.55 61.59 0.04 No

W. Alisal Street, East of Capitol Street 60.97 61.02 0.05 No

W. Alisal Street, West of Cayuga Street 60.97 61.02 0.05 No

W. Alisal Street, East of Cayuga Street 61.09 61.45 0.36 No

Capitol Street, North of W. Alisal Street 57.25 57.29 0.04 No

Capitol Street, South of W. Alisal Street 50.32 53.51 3.19 No

Capitol Street, North of Auburn Street 49.70 51.62 1.92 No

Cayuga Street, South of W. Alisal Street 49.53 53.49 3.96 No

Cayuga Street, North of Auburn Street 48.79 51.80 3.01 No

1. Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on traffic information obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Modeled estimates assume no natural or man-made shielding (e.g., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings).

2. Significant increase is defined as an increase of 5 dBA in areas where ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn; an increase of 3 dBA where ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA where ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors exceed 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL

Table 10

Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Parking Garage Alternative 2

Predicted Noise Level at 50 ft from Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA Ldn/CNEL) 1

Roadway Segment



W. Alisal Street, West of Capitol Street 61.55 61.08 -0.47 No

W. Alisal Street, East of Capitol Street 60.97 60.93 -0.04 No

W. Alisal Street, West of Cayuga Street 60.97 61.23 0.26 No

W. Alisal Street, East of Cayuga Street 61.09 61.45 0.36 No

Capitol Street, North of W. Alisal Street 57.25 57.29 0.04 No

Capitol Street, South of W. Alisal Street 50.32 52.77 2.45 No

Capitol Street, North of Auburn Street 49.70 51.62 1.92 No

Cayuga Street, South of W. Alisal Street 49.53 51.29 1.76 No

Cayuga Street, North of Auburn Street 48.79 51.80 3.01 No

1. Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on traffic


Table 10 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Parking Garage Alternative 2

Predicted Noise Level at 50 ft from Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA Ldn/CNEL) 1

Roadway Segment



information obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Modeled estimates assume no natural or man-made shielding (e.g., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings).

2. Significant increase is defined as an increase of 5 dBA in areas where ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn; an increase of 3 dBA where ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA where ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors exceed 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL

In comparison to existing traffic noise levels, neither Access Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along area roadways. As noted in Table 9, implementation of Access Alternative 1 would result in increases of approximately 4 dBA, or less, along area roadways. By comparison, Access Alternative 2 (refer to Table 10) would result in a reduced increase in overall traffic noise levels of approximately 3 dBA, or less, along primarily affected roadways. Predicted increases in traffic noise levels for both alternatives would be greatest along Capitol Street and Cayuga Street, south of West Alisal Street. As noted in Table 9 and Table 10, predicted near-term increases in traffic noise levels attributable to the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. As future development within the City and corresponding traffic volumes along area roadways increases, the project’s contribution to future cumulative ambient noise levels would be anticipated to decrease. Because the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards at nearby land uses, this impact would be considered less than significant. 11(b): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Ground vibration spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. The effects of ground vibration can vary from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely result in structural damage. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. A major concern with regard to construction vibration is building damage, which is generally assessed in terms of peak-particle velocity (ppv). Typical ground-borne vibration levels for various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 11.


Table 11 Representative Vibration Source Levels

for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity

at 25 Feet (in/sec ppv) Upper range 1.518

Pile Driver (impact) Lower range 0.644

Upper range 0.734 Pile Driver (sonic)

Lower range 0.170

Large Bulldozer 0.089

Caisson Drilling 0.089

Loaded Trucks 0.076

Jackhammer 0.035

Small Bulldozer 0.003 in/sec ppv=inches per second peak particle velocity Source: Caltrans 2002, FTA 2006

For construction-related activities resulting in continuous or frequent intermittent vibration events (i.e., pile drivers and compaction equipment), a threshold of 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) ppv is typically sufficient to avoid structural damage to most structures, with the exception of fragile or historic structures or ruins. For the protection of fragile, historic, and older residential structures, a more conservative threshold of 0.2 in/sec ppv is typically applied. This same threshold of 0.2 inc/sec ppv is typically considered the threshold at which groundborne vibration levels become distinctly perceptible, which can result in increased levels of human annoyance. Existing land uses located in the vicinity of the project site consist predominantly of office buildings, the nearest of which is located approximately 40 feet to the south of the proposed project site. As discussed above, the commonly applied groundborne vibration threshold for office-related land uses is 0.5 in/sec ppv for structural damage and 0.2 in/sec ppv for human annoyance. The specific types of equipment required for construction of the proposed parking structure have not yet been identified, but would likely require the use of various tractors, trucks, and jackhammers, as well as the possible use of pile drivers. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 11, groundborne vibration levels generated by most construction equipment, excluding pile drivers, would be less than 0.09 in/sec ppv at the nearest existing structures. However, if pile drivers are to be used during the construction of the parking structure, resultant groundborne vibration levels at nearby office buildings could potentially exceed applicable thresholds. For instance, assuming the use of an impact pile driver, predicted levels at the nearest office building would range from approximately 0.4 to 0.9 in/sec ppv. Sonic or vibratory pile drivers would result in reduced groundborne vibration levels ranging from approximately 0.1 to 0.4 in/sec ppv at this same location. Ground vibration levels would be dependent on various factors, including the type of pile driver used and soil conditions. Assuming that impact pile driving were to generate a high of 1.518 in/sec ppv and conservative assumptions for ground attenuation, buildings located within approximately 70 feet of impact pile-driving activities could potentially be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of


the commonly applied threshold for risk of architectural damage (i.e., 0.5 in/sec ppv). However, it is important to note that this determination is based on conservative assumptions. According to Caltrans, impact-pile driving has frequently been conducted at distances of approximately 25-50 feet from buildings without apparent damage to buildings. Based on the modeling conducted, the use of impact pile drivers, if required, may result in increased levels of groundborne vibration at the nearest existing structures that could exceed commonly applied threshold for risk of architectural damage (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) to buildings, as well as increased levels of annoyance to occupants of nearby offices and potential disruption of interior activities. As a result, this impact would be considered potentially significant and would require the following mitigation: Mitigation Measure #7 (Short-Term Construction-Generated Groundbourne Vibration): The following measures shall be implemented by the County’s designated construction contractor during grading and construction activities in order to reduce short-term increases in construction-generated groundbourne vibration. The Contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • During construction, pile driving techniques resulting in reduced groundborne vibration

levels (i.e., bored or screw pilings) shall be used where feasible, depending upon on engineering constraints as alternatives to impact-driven piles. In the event that impact-driven piles are to be used, the following measures shall be required:

• To reduce groundborne vibration impacts to nearby land uses, impact pile driving shall be limited to between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.; and

• Pre-construction crack surveys shall be conducted of existing buildings located within 70 feet of impact pile driving locations. The survey shall include photographs, video tape, or visual inventory of interior and exterior building components. All existing cracks in walls, floors, driveways, etc. shall be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage has occurred. Damage to buildings resulting from pile driving activities following construction shall be repaired. Repairs shall be the responsibility of Monterey County.

With implementation of the above mitigation, impact pile driving activities, if required, would be limited to the evening hours when activities within nearby offices would typically not be anticipated to occur. As a result, potential increases in levels of annoyance to occupants of nearby offices would be substantially reduced. The use of bored or screw pilings, if deemed feasible and dependent on engineering constraints, would result in further reductions in ground vibration. Due to the limited displacement of soil associated with these processes, groundborne vibration levels associated with bored or screw piling processes would be similar to those typically associated with drilling processes (i.e., 0.089 in/sec ppv at 25 feet) and would not be anticipated to exceed the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.2 in/sec ppv at nearby land uses. The above mitigation would also require “crack surveys” to be conducted of existing building located within approximately 70 feet of impact pile driving locations and that any damage to nearby existing buildings resulting from onsite impact-pile driving be repaired. Again, it is important to note that, according to Caltrans, impact pile driving has frequently been conducted at distances of approximately 25-50 feet from buildings without apparent damage to buildings.


With implementation of these measures, increased levels of annoyance to nearby receptors and potential structural damage to nearby buildings would be reduced to a less than significant level. 11(e), (f): No Impact. The proposed project would serve existing governmental land uses and would not result in the introduction of new noise-sensitive land uses within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to increased exposure of sensitive land uses to aircraft noise levels. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: See previous Sections II. A (Project Description) and B (Environmental Setting) and Section IV. A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

b) Police protection? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

c) Schools? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

d) Parks? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)


13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

e) Other public facilities? (Source: 1, 2, 7, 8)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: The City of Salinas provides a range of public services to the community, including fire protection and emergency services, police protection, sewer collection, local flood control, library services, and other community and institutional services. The proposed parking structure would be located within the City’s corporate limits and would utilize the City’s public services. 13(a), (b): Less than Significant Impact. The project would rely upon the City’s police, fire protection and emergency services. The project has been designed with security and safety measures in order to minimize the project’s impact on these public services. Further, as part of the project design, the County will consult and coordinate with the Salinas Fire Department regarding fire access and structure design to ensure conformity with local fire codes. It is anticipated that implementation of the project would result in an incremental demand on police, fire protection, and emergency services. The incremental demand on these public services is considered to be a less than significant impact. 13(c), (d), (e): No Impact. The proposed project would not contribute to an increase in population for the City of Salinas and therefore would not generate the need for additional public services, such as schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these public service issues. 14. RECREATION Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8)



15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14)

Setting, Analysis and Conclusions: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project by Higgins Associates (December 20, 2007). According to the analysis, the project site is bounded by West Alisal Street to the north, Auburn Street to the south and Capitol and Cayuga Streets to the west and east, respectively. Roadways in the area relevant to the traffic circulation around the site include Gabilan Street, West San Luis Street, Howard Street, Auburn Street, Main Street, Salinas Street, Lincoln Avenue, Church Street, Cayuga Street, Capitol Street, and Riker Street. The following is a brief description of the street network: West Alisal Street is a four-lane arterial running in an east-west direction to the north side of the parking structure site. West Alisal Street also provides access to the east, west, and central portion of the city and some of the parking lots serving the existing Monterey County facilities. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street.


Gabilan Street is a two-lane local street running in an east-west direction providing access to the central portion of the city. The speed limit is 25 mph in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street. West San Luis Street is a two-lane local street running in an east-west direction providing access to the residential neighborhood south of West Alisal Street. The speed limit on West San Luis Street is 25 mph and parking is provided on both sides of the street. Howard Street is a two-lane local street running in an east-west direction between Church Street and Salinas Street. Howard Street is one-way in the westbound direction between Church Street and Lincoln Avenue with reserved diagonal parking on the southwest quarter of the block. Between Lincoln Avenue and Salinas Street, Howard Street is a two-way street with parking provided on both sides of the road. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC. Auburn Street is a two-lane local street running in an east-west direction between Church and West Streets. Between Capitol and Cayuga Streets, Auburn Street is an alley that is owned by the County of Monterey. In this alley, parallel parking is provided on the north side of Auburn Street. The roadway narrows to one lane in the westbound direction on the eastern half of the block. Diagonal parking is provided on the western half of the block, in addition to the parallel parking provided on the north side of the street. The speed limit on Auburn Street is 25 mph and parking is provided on both sides of the street, with the exceptions noted above. Main Street is a multi-functional arterial running in a north-south direction. Between Blanco Road and John Street it is considered South Main Street and two-way traffic flow is permitted. Between John Street and Central Avenue, it is considered Main Street and two-way traffic flow is permitted between John Street and East San Luis Street. Only one-way traffic flow is permitted in the northbound direction on the segment between East San Luis Street and Central Avenue, which provides access to downtown Salinas. North of East Market Street, North Main Street permits two-way traffic flow to the northern portions of the city. Salinas Street is a three-lane arterial with one-way traffic flow in the southbound direction. On-street parking is provided south of Market Street. Salinas Street transitions from North Main Street south of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) underpass. The speed limit on Salinas Street is 25 mph in the vicinity of the MCGC. Lincoln Avenue is a two-lane arterial running in a north-south direction east of the parking structure site. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street. Church Street is a two-lane local street running in a north-south direction to the east of the parking structure site. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street. Cayuga Street is a two-lane local street running in a north-south direction adjacent to the east side of the parking structure site. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street.


Capitol Street is a two-lane collector street running in a north-south direction adjacent to the west side of the parking structure site. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street. Riker Street is a two-lane collector street running in a north-south direction. North of West Alisal Street, Riker Street becomes Riker Terrace, which is a cul-de-sac. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity of the MCGC and parking is provided on both sides of the street. To establish existing traffic flow conditions, new traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections during the weekday AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak hours. The traffic counts at the study intersections along West Alisal Street, Gabilan Street, and Howard Street were performed on May 16, 17, 22, and 23, 2007. The volumes at the intersections along West San Luis Street and Auburn Street were collected on October 16 and 17, 2007. Five of the study intersections are currently signalized, 13 are two-way stop controlled, and the remaining two (2) are all-way stop controlled. Most of the study intersections operate at or better than the City of Salinas LOS D standard. However, two of the study intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service under existing conditions. A description of each of the deficiently-operating intersections follows below: Riker Street/West Alisal Street This intersection currently operates at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. However, during the AM peak hour, the northbound approach experiences the highest delays and operates at LOS F. During the PM peak hour, the southbound approach experiences the highest delays and similarly operates at LOS F. In order to improve operations on the northbound and southbound approaches, it is recommended that both approaches be restriped to accommodate a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane. With the implementation of these improvements, the levels of service experienced on the northbound and southbound Riker Street approaches are expected to improve to LOS E. Capitol Street/West Alisal Street This intersection currently operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour with the worst approach operating at LOS F. In the PM peak hour this intersection operates at LOS F with the worst approach also operating at LOS F. The Caltrans Peak Hour signal warrant is met at this intersection under existing conditions. Due to the deficient levels of service, it is recommended that this intersection be signalized. The resulting levels of service with this improvement would be LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the signalization of this intersection is already planned as part of the parking structure project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and agency and professional standards, specific impact criteria have been applied to the study intersections and road segments to determine if a significant impact would occur due to the implementation of the project. The project site has a General Plan and Zoning designation of Public and Semi Public (PS) by the City of Salinas. Although the County is not obligated to comply with regulations


found in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code, the County will take into consideration development guidelines as they pertain to Level of Service (LOS) and parking requirements in order to maintain circulation standards. The City of Salinas Circulation Element Policy C-1.2 requires all intersections and roadways to maintain a LOS D or better. City zoning regulations require government offices to include one parking space per 200 square feet (square footage excludes stairways or elevators). The following are City of Salinas Criteria of Significance: A significant impact at a signalized study intersection is defined to occur under the following conditions:

• The addition of project traffic causes operations to deteriorate from acceptable level (LOS D

or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or LOS F); or

• The addition of project traffic increases the average delay by more than 1.0 second at intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F.

A significant impact at an unsignalized study intersection is defined to occur under the following conditions:

• The addition of project traffic causes operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS

E or better on side street for two-way stop control, LOS D or better for all-way stop control) to an unacceptable level (LOS F on side street for two-way stop control, LOS E for all-way stop control); or

• The addition of project traffic exacerbates the unacceptable operations (LOS F for two-way stop control or LOS D for all-way stop control), and the Caltrans peak-hour volume signal warrant is met.

15(a), (b), (d): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, based upon the estimate that the parking structure will provide a total of 550 parking spaces, it was assumed that 85% of the 550 (or 468 vehicles) will arrive and depart during the AM and PM peak hours. This is based upon the results of an online survey, and also takes into account employee absenteeism. Because the new parking structure will replace the existing 141-space surface lot that currently serves County employees, it was necessary to account for the vehicular trips that already travel to and from the site. Therefore, a reduction of the existing activity at the surface lot driveways was taken to avoid “double counting” vehicles that currently utilize the surface lot and would subsequently utilize the parking structure upon its completion. A second reduction was taken to account for the redistribution of traffic that will occur with the new parking structure in place. The majority of the County employees that currently park in the neighborhoods surrounding the MCGC are expected to utilize the new parking structure, thus reducing traffic on many streets within the study street network. To avoid double counting the traffic that will now be concentrated at the new parking structure, rather than dispersed throughout the study network, reductions were made to street segments based upon the on-street parking supply on each segment. To be conservative, it was assumed that only 50% of the vehicles that currently park on-street would utilize the new parking structure. It should also be


noted that this reduction does not account for traffic attributed to vehicles “circling” in an attempt to find on-street parking, although this type of reduction is also expected with the new parking structure in place. The AM and PM parking structure trip assignments for Access Alternatives 1 and 2 were combined with the reductions described above to determine the net AM and PM parking structure trip assignments for Access Alternatives 1 and 2. The net AM and PM peak hour parking structure trip assignments for Access Alternatives 1 and 2 were added to existing condition volumes to obtain existing plus parking structure condition volumes for each access alternative. The parking structure is currently in the preliminary stages of design, and it is not known at this time whether the final design will allow for the inclusion of limited retail space. If there is an opportunity for retail space, it would occupy a maximum of 5,000 square feet. Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for the land use “Specialty Retail”, 5,000 square feet of specialty retail would generate approximately 20 trips (10 in, 10 out) during the peak hour. However, the inclusion of retail space within the structure would necessitate a reduction of approximately 20 parking spaces for MCGC employees. A reduction in MCGC employee parking spaces would in turn cause a reduction in employee trips to the structure, which would offset the trips generated by the retail space. As a result, it was assumed that if retail space is included within the parking structure, the number of trips it would generate would be negligible. Therefore, no additional trips for the retail space were included in the analysis. The Caltrans Peak Hour Signal Warrant was assessed at all unsignalized study intersections under existing plus parking structure conditions for Access Alternatives 1 and 2. Under existing plus parking structure conditions, the Capitol Street/West Alisal Street intersection would continue to meet the peak hour signal warrant. It should be noted that the signalization of this intersection is already planned by the parking structure project. The pedestrian signal warrant was assessed at the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection due to the high number of pedestrians that are expected to cross West Alisal Street at this intersection with the implementation of the proposed parking structure. It was assumed that two-thirds of the employees would cross West Alisal Street at the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection during each of the AM and PM peak hours. This assumption was based on the fact that the Cayuga Street intersection inherently provides the most direct route to the MCGC complex; therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of employees would choose to cross at Cayuga Street. The pedestrian signal warrant is based upon the hourly pedestrian volume and the number of acceptable crossing gaps in vehicular traffic. In order for the pedestrian signal warrant to be met, the pedestrian volume must be higher than 190 in any hour and the number of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic must be less than 60. An acceptable crossing gap is defined as a gap in vehicular traffic that is of sufficient length for an average pedestrian to cross all lanes of traffic. To determine the number of acceptable crossing gaps at this location, a gap study was performed on November 27, 2007 between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. The length of time required for an average pedestrian, with a walking speed of 4 ft/sec, to cross West Alisal Street at this location is 16 seconds; therefore gaps of 16 seconds or more were considered ‘acceptable.’ The total number of acceptable gaps counted during this hour was 12. Due to the high number of pedestrians anticipated to cross at the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, in


conjunction with the infrequent number of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic, the pedestrian signal warrant would be met at this location under existing plus parking structure conditions for Access Alternatives 1 and 2. Under existing plus parking structure condition AM and PM intersection levels of service for Access Alternatives 1 and 2, most of the study intersections would continue to operate at or better than the City of Salinas LOS D standard. However, three of the study intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under existing plus parking structure conditions for Access Alternatives 1 and 2. A description of each of the deficiently-operating intersections follows below: Riker Street/West Alisal Street This intersection is expected to continue operating at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus parking structure conditions for both Access Alternatives 1 and 2. However, during the AM peak hour, the northbound approach is expected to experience the highest delays and operate at LOS E. During the PM peak hour, the southbound approach is expected to experience the highest delays and operate at LOS F. As discussed under existing conditions, it is recommended that both approaches be restriped to accommodate a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane in order to improve operations at the northbound and southbound approaches. The northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour with the implementation of the improvements described above. Although the southbound approach is expected to continue operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour with the implementation of these improvements, the approach would experience a reduction in delay, which would improve traffic operations on the minor street approach. Capitol Street/West Alisal Street This intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus parking structure conditions for both Access Alternatives 1 and 2. The Caltrans Peak Hour signal warrant continues to be met under these scenarios. As described under existing conditions, due to the deficient levels of service, it is recommended that this intersection be signalized. It should be noted that under existing plus parking structure conditions, the cross-product rule, a method used to determine whether protected left-turn phasing should be implemented at a signalized intersection, would not be met at this intersection. However, it is recommended that this intersection be monitored to determine if permitted-protected left-turn phasing is needed in the future on the eastbound and westbound approaches with the implementation of the proposed parking structure. In addition to signalizing this intersection, it is recommended that the northbound approach be restriped to accommodate a shared left-through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane with the implementation of the proposed parking structure in order to reduce the potential for queuing on northbound Capitol Street. The resulting levels of service with these improvements would be LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the signalization of this intersection is already planned as an improvement by the parking structure project. Although it is not needed due to a level of service deficiency, it is recommended that eastbound and westbound dedicated left-turn lanes be installed on West Alisal Street under existing plus


parking structure conditions for both Access Alternatives 1 and 2 to accommodate the increase in the westbound left turn volume attributed to the new parking structure. This can be accomplished by restriping eastbound and westbound West Alisal Street to accommodate one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through-right lane. In order to achieve this configuration, it would be necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Riker Street and Cayuga Street. Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street Under existing plus parking structure conditions for Access Alternatives 1 and 2, this intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour, and to degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The worst approach, northbound Cayuga Street, is expected to degrade to LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. As previously discussed, the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection would meet the pedestrian signal warrant under existing plus parking structure conditions. The signalization of this intersection should be considered for pedestrian safety and for the more efficient progression of vehicles through the coordinated corridor. Currently, pedestrians can activate the existing lighted crosswalk at this location at any time. With the future signalization of the Capitol Street/West Alisal Street intersection, which will be coordinated with the existing signals along the West Alisal Street corridor, the activation of the lighted pedestrian crosswalk between the coordinated signals at Capitol Street and Church Street would disrupt the signal coordination. The signalization of the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection would incorporate pedestrians into the coordinated system and facilitate more efficient operations of the coordinated corridor, in addition to improving pedestrian safety at this location. Furthermore, with such a large number of pedestrians expected to cross West Alisal Street at the Cayuga Street intersection upon the completion of the proposed parking structure, it is anticipated that during the peak 15-minute AM and PM periods (7:45 to 8:00 AM and 5:00 to 5:15 PM) the lighted crosswalk could be activated nearly continuously during each 15-minute period. The unmetered flow of pedestrians crossing West Alisal Street at this location is expected to cause vehicle congestion and queuing during these time periods. As previously discussed, the signalization of the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection would incorporate pedestrians into the coordinated system, thus preventing the continuous crossing of pedestrians and improving pedestrian safety. In conjunction with the signalization of the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, the northbound Cayuga Street approach would also need to be restriped to accommodate a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane. In addition, the westbound West Alisal Street approach would need to be restriped to accommodate one left-turn lane and two through lanes. In order to achieve this configuration, it would be necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Cayuga Street and Church Street. With the implementation of the signal and other aforementioned improvements, the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection would be expected to operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour for Access Alternative 1. For Access Alternative 2, this intersection would be expected to operate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus parking structure conditions.


As an alternative to signalizing the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, it is recommended that Monterey County consider designing the proposed parking structure in a manner that would encourage the majority of County employees to cross West Alisal Street at the Capitol Street intersection, which will be signalized in the future. This could be accomplished by positioning the parking structure’s lobby area and elevators at or near the Capitol Street/West Alisal Street intersection, thus making it more convenient for employees to cross West Alisal Street at this location, rather than at the Cayuga Street intersection. With this type of parking structure configuration, it was assumed that three-fourths of the employees utilizing the proposed parking structure would cross West Alisal Street at the signalized Capitol Street intersection. If only one quarter of the employees cross West Alisal Street at the Cayuga Street intersection, the pedestrian signal warrant would no longer be met at this location. Furthermore, this number of pedestrians crossing at the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection during each of the AM and PM peak hours would not be anticipated to cause deficient operations at this intersection. If the County chooses to encourage employees to cross West Alisal Street at the Capitol Street intersection through the parking structure design, rather than implement a traffic signal at the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, it is still recommended that the northbound Cayuga Street approach be restriped to accommodate a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane. A westbound median acceleration lane on West Alisal Street west of Cayuga Street should also be installed to facilitate the northbound Cayuga Street left-turn movements. With the implementation of these improvements, the northbound approach is expected to improve to LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour for both Access Alternatives 1 and 2. The County may want to consider staggering work shifts as a supplemental method for reducing the impact of the large number of employees crossing West Alisal Street within each 15-minute period during the morning and evening peak hours. By staggering employee arrival and departure times, the number of employees crossing West Alisal Street would be distributed over a longer period of time, rather than concentrated within the 15-minute period before the beginning of the work day and the 15-minute period after the end of the work day. It is recommended that the County consider this option after an evaluation of pedestrian operations is performed with the parking structure in place. The County could also explore ways to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation for employees. For example, if more employees were to bicycle, use public transportation, or carpool to get to work, there would be reductions in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, which would lessen the number of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at this location. The project would also contribute temporary vehicle trips in the form of contractor and construction vehicles, building material delivery trucks and soil and debris off-haul trucks during grading and construction activities The project proposes 10,000 cubic yards of grading, which would produce approximately 250 off-haul truck trips. It is anticipated that these temporary vehicle trips would be accommodated by the local road system and would not result in a significant impact.


In terms of intersection visibility, the project’s final site plan will be designed to conform with driveway and corner visibility standards as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the above analysis and as recommended by the traffic consultant, the following mitigation would be required: Mitigation Measure #8 (Capitol/West Alisal Restriping): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to restripe eastbound and westbound West Alisal Street to accommodate one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one through-right lane on both approaches to the Capitol Street/West Alisal Street intersection. The project shall also be required to restripe both northbound and southbound Capitol Street to accommodate one shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane. This would make it necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Riker Street and Cayuga Street. This improvement may also result in the loss of on-street parking spaces on Capitol Street (approximately two spaces north of West Alisal Street and two spaces south of West Alisal Street). Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final striping layout and curb markings will also require Salinas City Council approval. Mitigation Measure #9 (Cayuga/West Alisal Restriping): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to restripe the northbound approach of the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection to accommodate one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane; and install a westbound median acceleration lane on West Alisal Street to facilitate the northbound Cayuga Street left-turn movements. The project shall also be required to restripe westbound West Alisal Street to accommodate one left-turn lane and two through lanes at this intersection. This would make it necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Cayuga Street and Church Street. This improvement may also result in the loss of on-street parking spaces on Cayuga Street (approximately four spaces south of West Alisal Street). Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final striping layout and curb markings will also require Salinas City Council approval. Mitigation Measure #10a (Capitol/West Alisal Pedestrian Outlet Design): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to design the proposed parking structure in a manner that encourages employees to cross West Alisal Street at the Capitol Street intersection (which will be signalized), rather than at the Cayuga Street intersection, thus eliminating the need to signalize the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection. To discourage crossing at Cayuga Street and West Alisal Street, the existing lighted crosswalk at that location shall be removed, and the walkway between the Old Jail and Courthouse building shall be gated. Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements, and final design shall be approved by the Salinas City Council; or Mitigation Measure #10b (Cayuga/West Alisal Signalization): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to signalize the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, coordinate the signal timing with the adjacent signals on the West Alisal Street corridor, provide two northbound approach lanes and add a westbound left turn pocket. Prior to


final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final design will also require Salinas City Council approval. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce traffic and safety impacts to a less than significant level. The restriping plans are illustrated in Figure 7.

Source: Higgins Associates, January 2008

Figure 7Concept Striping Plan

T:\_C

S\Wo

rk\Mo

nterey

, Cou

nty of

\Par

king S

truct

ure - 2

7-013

2\Fig

ures\

Figure

7 - C

once

pt St

riping

Plan

. ai, J

anua

ry 20

08


15(c), (e): No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a public or private airport and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project has been designed to allow access by the City’s emergency vehicles and personnel and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to these traffic issues. 15(f): Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Parking Study was prepared for the project by Higgins Associates (October 10, 2007). According to the study, as mitigation for the MCGC parking impacts as predicted in 2003 under the EIR, any parking structure designed and built to accommodate County administration functions would have a significant beneficial effect on existing parking conditions surrounding the Government Center campus. The Parking Study recommended that the parking demand for employees at the MCGC be based on the number of employees rather than on square footage of building space. Further, the study recommended that the ITE rate of 0.83 parking spaces per employee be used to determine the parking demand. There are currently 785 employees at the MCGC. This includes County employees, court employees, consultants, and temporary employees. It is estimated that there will be a maximum of 885 employees at the MCGC in the future. Based on the existing and future numbers of employees, a total of 652 parking spaces would be required to accommodate employees under future conditions. There are currently 338 parking spaces designated for employees at the MCGC. The project proposes a multi-level parking structure consisting of 550 parking spaces on an existing 141 space parking lot currently being utilized by County employees. Implementation of the project would result in a loss of surface lot parking spaces. However, the multi-level parking structure would more than make up for this loss with an estimated surplus of 37 spaces under future employment projections. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, implementation of Mitigation Measure #’s 8, 9, and 10 would result in a combined loss of approximately 39 on-street parking spaces, most of which primarily serve the Monterey County Government Center. The implementation of the parking structure would increase the area’s total parking supply by approximately 300 to 400 spaces. Therefore the parking structure would more than make up for the loss of on-street parking spaces by providing parking for County and Court employees who are currently utilizing on-street parking spaces. It is estimated that it will take 15 months for the new parking structure to be constructed. Implementation of the project would result in the temporary loss of 141 parking spaces during construction of the new parking structure. In order to offset the temporary loss of parking spaces, the Parking Study recommends the following temporary parking strategies: Temporary Parking Strategy 1 There are 138 parking spaces on the second floor of the Salinas Street Garage. Based on the results of the parking utilization survey, those spaces are currently only moderately utilized (54 – 60%). Although these off-street spaces are outside of the 3-minute walking distance from the MCGC, it is estimated that it would take only about 5 minutes for employees to walk from the Salinas Street garage to the MCGC complex. As part of the temporary parking plan, the County


could negotiate with the City to lease approximately one-half of the parking spaces on the second floor of the Salinas Street garage. This would require a temporary amendment to the City of Salinas downtown parking plan, which proposes to require City permits for all of the parking spaces in the Salinas Street garage. This strategy would provide approximately 70 parking spaces for County employees, or about 50% of the spaces that would be temporarily lost during construction. Temporary Parking Strategy 2 Although the County still provides shuttle service between the train station and the Government Center for employees and jurors, employee ridership is low (according to the online survey, only 1 respondent out of 323, or 0.3%, reported using the shuttle service). There are currently 143 parking spaces available at the train station for jurors and County employees. Since 72 spaces need to be reserved for jurors, 71 spaces are available for employees who use the shuttle service. The County could encourage ridership on the shuttle between the train station and the Government Center by modifying the shuttle schedule so that shuttle buses leave every 15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes as with the previous schedule. This would encourage employees to use the shuttle service, as they would not have to wait 30 minutes for the next shuttle if they happen to just miss one. This strategy would provide 71 parking spaces for County employees, or about 50% of the spaces that would be temporarily lost during construction. Temporary Parking Strategy 3 The County leases 130 of the 435 parking spaces in the new City of Salinas parking structure at the corner of Market St. / Monterey St. for County employee parking. Until recently, the shuttle service that operates between the Government Center and the train station also made stops at the new City of Salinas parking structure. Due to low ridership, the new City of Salinas parking structure stop was eliminated from the schedule. As an interim measure, the shuttle service could be expanded to provide two shuttle routes instead of one, with one stopping at the train station and one stopping at the new City of Salinas parking structure. If this is done, it is recommended that the schedule be modified so that shuttle buses leave every 15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes as with the previous schedule. This would encourage employees to use the shuttle service, as they would not have to wait 30 minutes for the next shuttle if they happen to just miss one. This strategy would provide 130 parking spaces for County employees, or about 92% of the spaces that would be temporarily lost during construction. Based on the above analysis and as recommended by the traffic consultant, the following mitigation would be required: Mitigation Measure #11 (Temporary Parking Plan): In order to reduce temporary parking impacts, the County of Monterey, in coordination with the City of Salinas, shall implement a temporary parking plan, based on one or a combination of the three strategies analyzed in the Phase I Parking Study prepared by Higgins Associates (October 10, 2007), which would provide enough parking spaces to offset the temporary loss of parking spaces during construction of the parking structure. The temporary parking plan shall account for each space lost due to construction (141 spaces) and shall also address issues such as the location of fleet, field and construction contractor vehicles off-site, and the promotion of car pooling by locating convenient


parking spaces for car pool users. The use of bicycles and public transit shall also be encouraged, especially while the parking structure is under construction. The Temporary Parking Plan, (which involves use of the Salinas Street garage, an additional shuttle route, and improved employee shuttle service with more frequent [15-minute] headways), shall be in place and implemented prior to grading and construction activities and the loss of any existing parking. Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce temporary parking impacts to a less than significant level, as the Temporary Parking Plan will compensate spaces for the loss of existing parking and during construction activities. 15(g): No Impact. The primary public transit service in the City of Salinas is the bus service provided by Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST). MST focuses on improving operational conditions through established bus routes and schedules that efficiently meet travel demands, reduce travel times, improve service reliability, and encourage bike-and-ride initiatives. All MST buses are wheelchair accessible and equipped with bike racks. In the vicinity of the MCGC, bus routes are provided along West Alisal Street, Lincoln Avenue and Salinas Street. The MST Transit Center is within a 4-minute walking distance to the MCGC. The City of Salinas has adopted a Master Bikeway Plan that designates routes along roadways that can be used by bicycling commuters and recreational riders for safe access to major employers, shopping centers and schools. Most bicycle routes in Salinas are part of the existing and proposed street and highway system, being either lanes on roadway shoulders or designated routes that mix with the traffic. Two Class III bicycle paths run along Gabilan Street/Central Avenue and Lincoln Avenue in the vicinity of the MCGC, and existing bicycle parking facilities are present at the MCGC. The project would not conflict with the City’s alternative transportation plans or programs since it would be located in an area with access to bus service and bicycle routes. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to this transportation issue. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)


16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8)



VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

c) Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)

Discussion, Analysis and Conclusions: (a) Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the analysis throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. See previous Sections II. A (Project Description) and B (Environmental Setting) and Section IV. A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced. (b) Less than Significant Impact. The project would involve a public infrastructure use on a site that is planned for Public/Semi-Public uses in the City of Salinas General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would result in minor incremental reductions in air quality in the project vicinity, and minor increases in traffic congestion. The incremental air quality, transportation/traffic, public services, and utilities impacts of the project, when considered in combination with the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects in the planning area, would result in less than significant impacts. (c) Less than Significant Impact. Project design would ensure consistency with relevant General Plan health and safety policies. All potential impact areas are deemed less than significant.


VIII. FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FEES Assessment of Fee: The State Legislature, through the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 1535, revoked the authority of lead agencies to determine that a project subject to CEQA review had a “de minimis” (minimal) effect on fish and wildlife resources under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game. Projects that were determined to have a “de minimis” effect were exempt from payment of the filing fees. SB 1535 has eliminated the provision for a determination of “de minimis” effect by the lead agency; consequently, all land development projects that are subject to environmental review are now subject to the filing fees, unless the Department of Fish and Game determines that the project will have no effect on fish and wildlife resources. To be considered for determination of “no effect” on fish and wildlife resources, development applicants must submit a form requesting such determination to the Department of Fish and Game. Forms may be obtained by contacting the Department by telephone at (916) 631-0606 or through the Department’s website at www.dfg.ca.gov. Conclusion: The project would be required to pay the fee. Evidence: Based on the record as a whole as embodied in the Public Works Department files

pertaining to the MCGC Parking Structure and the attached Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/


IX. REFERENCES 1. Project Plans and Materials for the MCGC Parking Structure

2. City of Salinas General Plan, 2002

3. City of Salinas Zoning Ordinance

4. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Revised June 2004

5. Site Visit Conducted by PMC on November 8, 2007

6. Planning & Building Inspection Department’s Geographic Information System

7. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey County Government Center (SCH #2003011115) prepared by PMC, dated July and October 2003

8. Preliminary Site Screening of Physical Factors for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by PMC, dated September 2007

9. Phase I Parking Study for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by Higgins Associates, dated October 10, 2007

10. Visual Simulations/Conceptual Plans for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by PMC, dated December 14, 2007

11. Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by AMBIENT, dated December 6, 2007

12. Noise Impact Analysis for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by AMBIENT, dated December 6, 2007

13. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 300 Cayuga Street, Salinas, CA prepared by Caprock, dated November 28, 2007

14. Phase II Traffic Impact Analysis for the Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure prepared by Higgins Associates, dated December 20, 2007

X. APPENDICES A. Negative Declaration Form

B. Technical Studies (under separate cover on CD)

APPENDIX A Mitigated Negative Declaration Pacific Municipal Consultants. Monterey Government Center Parking Structure, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Monterey County January 3, 2008

Mitigated Negative Declaration

MONTEREY COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 168 WEST ALISAL ST., 2nd FLOOR, SALINAS, CA 93901 PHONE: (831) 755-4800 FAX: (831) 755-4958

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Title: Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure

File No.: PD060376

Lead Agency: Monterey County Public Works Department

Project Location(s): 300 Cayuga Street Salinas, California

Name of Property Owner: County of Monterey

Name of Applicant: Monterey County Public Works, Architectural Services (Tony Mitre, Project Manager)

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 002-322-018-000

Project Description: The MCGC Parking Structure project would be located on an existing surface parking lot off of West Alisal Street, between Cayuga and Capitol Streets. The project proposes a multi-level parking structure consisting of up to 550 parking spaces on 5 levels, plus a ¾ underground level. The structural footprint would be approximately 35,000 square feet, constructed on a 43,400 square foot parcel, with a structural height of up to 57 feet. The parking structure would be for County and Court employees and contractor use only. There would be no public access or parking for jurors or visitors. Two access/egress alternatives were analyzed for the parking structure to determine optimal traffic movement. The design preferred by the County would provide full-access ingress and egress at one driveway on Cayuga Street, with a second full ingress/egress driveway on Capitol Street. Another right-out only egress point directly to West Alisal Street will be established; however, this egress will be for emergency purposes only (see Figure 5). The project will result in additional traffic improvements around the parking structure, including new traffic signal(s), restriping, new curb returns at corners, and accommodation of a bus turnout along West Alisal. Specifically, the signalization of West Alisal Street and Capitol Street is part of the project and project description, because this intersection is

Monterey County Government Center Parking Structure PD060376 Page 1 of 6

currently deficient. The ¾ underground level is intended to maximize the available site area and reduce the overall height and scale of the structure, providing supporting geotechnical data. A project design involving a partial level below existing grade would require excavation and off-haul of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material. The project proposes to deposit excavated soil material at the County’s Laurel Maintenance Facility property, where the material could be spread, compacted or used for fill. This off-haul would require approximately 250 truck trips. The project is undergoing detailed architectural and engineering design; however, the County has prepared a preliminary design concept to demonstrate the structure’s possible appearance, size and relative scale. The County has issued RFP #10018 for full design services associated with the project. The structure design is anticipated to be a spiral “park on ramp” style with two main elevators located on the West Alisal Street (eastern) side, and two stairwells located on the project’s western corners. A future pedestrian bridge or skywalk, which would connect the parking structure to the new Administrative Building, may be constructed after completion of this phase of the project if there is adequate funding available. If constructed, the skywalk would span across West Alisal Street to provide a direct pedestrian connection, eliminating or greatly reducing pedestrian movements across West Alisal. The ground (at-grade) level of the structure may contain two areas designated for limited retail use. The retail use would encompass a maximum of 5,000 square feet of total space plus four vending areas of up to 900 square feet each, and would be restricted or conditioned to only allow ready-made foods and other concession-style “grab and go” items, such as sandwiches, baked goods, newsstand items, coffee, juice, etc. The retail use is limited and intended to cater to County employees and pedestrians in the immediate area. It is anticipated that the retail use would not serve as a commercial destination to generate or draw outside traffic. The use is intended to be incidental and subservient to the parking structure.

Public Review Period: Begins January 23, 2008 ends, February 24, 2008

Address Where Copy of Initial Study is Available for Public Review:

Monterey County Resource Management Agency – Public Works Department, Architectural Services 168 W. Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901

Address Where Written Comments Should be Sent:

Tony Mitre, Project Manager Monterey County Resource Management Agency – Public Works Department, Architectural Services 168 W. Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901

THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WITH MITIGATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT HAS BEEN FOUND:

a. That said project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment; b. That said project will have no significant impact on long-term environmental goals;


c. That said project will have no significant cumulative effect upon the environment; d. That said project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or

indirectly. Mitigation Measure #1 (Project Design): In order to minimize aesthetic impacts within the project vicinity, the project shall incorporate materials, colors, designs, and alley improvements in order to provide an aesthetically-pleasing and visually interesting treatment that will soften the visual impact as seen from the adjacent law office building. Final design package submittals shall be reviewed by County of Monterey Architectural Services to ensure that the project is designed in such a way as to blend with the neighborhood in terms of architectural style, colors and scale, and to provide a visual improvement to the area, through design and hardscape/landscape features, compared to the existing surface parking lot. Prior to construction, all such improvements and features shall be demonstrated in the final design package submittal approved by the County and shall also be reviewed and approved by the City of Salinas for consistency with the City’s design guidelines and regulations.

Mitigation Measure #2 (Lighting): In order to minimize the project’s light and glare impacts, outdoor lighting shall employ cutoff optics that allows no light emitted above a horizontal plane running through the bottom of the fixture. All building-mounted and freestanding lights (including the fixture, base, and pole) shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-five feet in height, and within public areas, shall be designed at a pedestrian scale. Lighting adjacent to other property or public rights-of-way shall be directed away and shielded to reduce light trespass. No portion of the lamp (including the lens and reflectors) shall extend below the bottom edge of the lighting fixture nor be visible from an adjacent property or public right-of-way. Mirror or highly reflective glass shall not significantly increase glare visible from adjacent streets and property or pose a hazard for motor vehicles. Final design package submittals, including a point to point lighting plan showing horizontal illuminance in footcandles, shall be reviewed by County of Monterey Architectural Services to ensure that the project lighting is designed to be architecturally integrated with the building design and highlights architectural details of the building. Prior to construction, lighting features shall be demonstrated in the final design package submittal approved by the County and shall also be reviewed and approved by the City of Salinas for consistency with the City’s lighting guidelines and regulations. Mitigation Measure #3 (Short-Term Construction Emissions): In order to minimize short-term construction emissions, the project shall implement the following MBUAPCD-recommended mitigation measures during grading and construction activities. The County’s designated construction contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of

operation, soil and wind exposure;

• Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph);

• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days);

• Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed areas;

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;


• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles, such as dirt, sand, etc;

• Cover inactive storage piles;

• Sweep streets daily, with water sweepers, if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public streets;

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;

• Construction equipment shall not be left idling for periods longer than 5 minutes when not in use; and

• Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding emissions-related complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

Mitigation Measure #4 (Discovery of Cultural Resources): If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological, historical or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources), work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate it. The Monterey County RMA - Planning Department and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery.

Mitigation Measure #5 (Discovery of Human Remains): In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Monterey County has determined whether the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. This is in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resource Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a “Native American Most Likely Descendent” to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods.

Mitigation Measure #6 (Short-Term Construction Noise): The following measures shall be implemented by the County’s designated construction contractor during grading and construction activities in order to reduce short-term increases in construction noise. The Contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • Construction activities (excluding activities that would result in a safety concern to the public or

construction workers) shall be limited to between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;

• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation;

• When not in use, motorized construction equipment shall not be left idling for periods greater than 5 minutes;


• Temporary noise barriers, such as loaded vinyl curtains or plywood barriers, shall be constructed around the perimeter of the project site where noise is acute;

• Bored or screw pilings shall be used where feasible, dependent upon engineering constraints as alternatives to impact-driven piles. In the event that impact-driven piles are used, the following additional measure shall be required:

• To reduce noise-related and vibration impacts to nearby land uses, impact-pile driving shall be limited to between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.; and

• The impact area of the pile driving mechanism will be shielded to the extent feasible by a temporary casing, wall or other noise attenuation method designed to block/absorb noise and separate the line of sight between the pile driver and the nearest sensitive receptors;

• Written notification of anticipated construction schedules shall be provided to businesses located in adjacent buildings. The notification shall include anticipated dates and hours of construction, as well as the name and phone number of a construction representative to be contacted with regard to noise-related questions and/or concerns.

Mitigation Measure #7 (Short-Term Construction-Generated Groundbourne Vibration): The following measures shall be implemented by the County’s designated construction contractor during grading and construction activities in order to reduce short-term increases in construction-generated groundbourne vibration. The Contractor shall monitor grading and construction activities on a daily basis to ensure that these measures are implemented. • During construction, pile driving techniques resulting in reduced groundborne vibration levels (i.e.,

bored or screw pilings) shall be used where feasible, depending upon on engineering constraints as alternatives to impact-driven piles. In the event that impact-driven piles are to be used, the following measures shall be required:

• To reduce groundborne vibration impacts to nearby land uses, impact pile driving shall be limited to between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.; and

• Pre-construction crack surveys shall be conducted of existing buildings located within 70 feet of impact pile driving locations. The survey shall include photographs, video tape, or visual inventory of interior and exterior building components. All existing cracks in walls, floors, driveways, etc. shall be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage has occurred. Damage to buildings resulting from pile driving activities following construction shall be repaired. Repairs shall be the responsibility of Monterey County.

Mitigation Measure #8 (Capitol/West Alisal Restriping): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to restripe eastbound and westbound West Alisal Street to accommodate one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one through-right lane on both approaches to the Capitol Street/West Alisal Street intersection. The project shall also be required to restripe both northbound and southbound Capitol Street to accommodate one shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane. This would make it necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Riker Street and Cayuga Street. This improvement may also result in the loss of on-street parking spaces on Capitol Street (approximately two spaces north of West Alisal Street and two spaces south of West Alisal Street). Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final striping layout and curb markings will also require Salinas City Council approval.


Mitigation Measure #9 (Cayuga/West Alisal Restriping): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to restripe the northbound approach of the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection to accommodate one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane; and install a westbound median acceleration lane on West Alisal Street to facilitate the northbound Cayuga Street left-turn movements. The project shall also be required to restripe westbound West Alisal Street to accommodate one left-turn lane and two through lanes at this intersection. This would make it necessary to prohibit parking on either the north or south side of West Alisal Street between Cayuga Street and Church Street. This improvement may also result in the loss of on-street parking spaces on Cayuga Street (approximately four spaces south of West Alisal Street). Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final striping layout and curb markings will also require Salinas City Council approval. Mitigation Measure #10a (Capitol/West Alisal Pedestrian Outlet Design): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to design the proposed parking structure in a manner that encourages employees to cross West Alisal Street at the Capitol Street intersection (which will be signalized), rather than at the Cayuga Street intersection, thus eliminating the need to signalize the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection. To discourage crossing at Cayuga Street and West Alisal Street, the existing lighted crosswalk at that location shall be removed, and the walkway between the Old Jail and Courthouse building shall be gated. Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements, and final design shall be approved by the Salinas City Council; or Mitigation Measure #10b (Cayuga/West Alisal Signalization): In order to reduce traffic and safety impacts, the project shall be required to signalize the Cayuga Street/West Alisal Street intersection, coordinate the signal timing with the adjacent signals on the West Alisal Street corridor, provide two northbound approach lanes and add a westbound left turn pocket. Prior to final building inspection/occupancy, the Monterey County Public Works Department and City of Salinas Engineer shall review and approve said improvements. Final design will also require Salinas City Council approval. Mitigation Measure #11 (Temporary Parking Plan): In order to reduce temporary parking impacts, the County of Monterey, in coordination with the City of Salinas, shall implement a temporary parking plan, based on one or a combination of the three strategies analyzed in the Phase I Parking Study prepared by Higgins Associates (October 10, 2007), which would provide enough parking spaces to offset the temporary loss of parking spaces during construction of the parking structure. The temporary parking plan shall account for each space lost due to construction (141 spaces) and shall also address issues such as the location of fleet, field and construction contractor vehicles off-site, and the promotion of car pooling by locating convenient parking spaces for car pool users. The use of bicycles and public transit shall also be encouraged, especially while the parking structure is under construction. The Temporary Parking Plan, (which involves use of the Salinas Street garage, an additional shuttle route, and improved employee shuttle service with more frequent [15-minute] headways), shall be in place and implemented prior to grading and construction activities and the loss of any existing parking.


DRAFT NITIAL TUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE D

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT NITIAL TUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE D