Soledad council hears Miramonte update as developer, staff negotiate development agreement

City staff updated the Soledad City Council on the Miramonte Specific Plan on March 2025, saying the 647‑acre project east of Soledad is largely through land‑use approvals but still requires a development agreement, public‑facility financing and agricultural conservation easements required by LAFCO.

City Manager Megan Hunter told the council the city has already approved a vesting tentative tract map, certified the environmental review document and approved a specific plan, and that LAFCO has “conditionally approved the annexation” but that annexation remains contingent on the developer purchasing agricultural conservation easements. Hunter said the next major step is negotiating a development agreement that will set implementation rules for infrastructure, phasing and finance.

The development agreement is a legally binding contract that city staff described as the document that will lock in responsibilities for public facilities, infrastructure timing, fee credits and reimbursements, and mitigation monitoring. Staff said the agreement typically runs 10–20 years for a long buildout (staff estimated final buildout could be 20–30 years) and can include extension provisions tied to construction progress. Ron Sisson of EMC Planning Group — the city’s consultant on implementation — said the consultant team is “assisting Megan and her staff with the implementation tasks for Miramonte.”

Staff reiterated that the project’s environmental impact report (EIR) was certified earlier and that the city has an adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). City staff said some MMRP timing and trigger language needs clarification and that changes might be processed as an environmental addendum tied to the development agreement.

On the annexation, staff explained that LAFCO’s conditional approval requires conservation easements for an equal amount of farmland and that the developer is exploring a phased approach to acquiring easements because of the very high cost of permanently protecting Monterey County agricultural land. Staff said developers typically want the certainty of a signed development agreement before making large, upfront payments for conservation easements.

City staff emphasized that several technical documents remain to be completed and will be packaged with the development agreement, including a public‑facility financing plan, an off‑site traffic improvement plan, park and landscape master plans, and an affordable housing agreement.

Next steps: staff said they will continue technical negotiations with the developer, refine the public‑facility financing plan and finalize the affordable‑housing agreement and development agreement before returning the package to the Planning Commission and then the City Council for formal action.