Atwater City Council
May 13, 2024

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐3  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater FINDINGS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Parkland. The Existing General Plan Policy LU‐23 strives to maintain or exceed a minimum standard of 3.0 acres of public parkland per 1,000 population. The current distribution of park acreage per 1,000 residents is approximately 2.52 acres.

Access  to  Recreational  Facilities.  Many residents may not have direct or ease of access to recreational facilities and programs within the city, limiting their opportunities for use of existing recreational facilities.

Accessibility. Existing community facilities and recreational areas may not be accessible or updated to address accessibility.

Accessibility  Improvement  Programs.  The City of Atwater has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of its policies, programs, and facilities to determine the extent to which individuals with disabilities may be restricted in their access to City services and activities.

Funding  Constraints. Limited budgets and funding sources may hinder the development and maintenance of community services and facilities. This may include Insufficient funding for maintenance and upgrades.

Police Services. The ratio of funded sworn personnel to population is 0.90 officers per one thousand residents. This is less than the nationwide rate of 1.7 officers per thousand population for Group IV cities in the Western United States (25,000 to 49,999 population).

Police Department Attrition Rates. As described in the Department’s 2022 Annual Report, the status of personnel is always a concern facing the Atwater Police Department. The Atwater Police Department’s attrition rate during the year was 25% for sworn positions and 10% for non‐sworn positions.

Fire Protection. As of October 2008, the City of Atwater contracts with the State of California – Cal Fire for fire protection services.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐4

4.1 FIRE PROTECTION
Fire protection services within the City of Atwater is provided by the Atwater City Fire Department (through a service contract with the State of California – Cal Fire) at two station locations (Stations 41 and 42). The location of fire stations within Atwater is shown on Figure 4.0‐1.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
City of Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 15.28, California Fire Code Chapter 15.28, adopts and establishes the California Fire Code as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Building Standards Code Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

EXISTING SETTING

ATWATER FIRE DEPARTMENT
The City of Atwater’s Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical response services within the City limits. The Fire Chief reports to the City Manager and to the elected City Council. The Fire Department operated on an estimated budget of $4.2 million during the FY 23‐24. The City Council approves the Fire Department’s budget annually.

The City of Atwater reorganized their Fire Department and entered into a contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for the provision of fire protection services in 2008.

The CAL FIRE contract provides daily staffing at fire stations, dispatch, management, incident command, training, investigation and fire prevention activities. CAL FIRE will provide servicesto the City and associated Fire District to fulfill the operational policies and direction of the City Council and District Board. The provision of these services will be through a contractual agreement and CAL FIRE will manage that service delivery within the budget and applicable policies approved by the Atwater City Council/Board of Directors and CAL FIRE policies. Budgeted funds are expended directly by the City and Fire District or by CAL FIRE, and CAL FIRE is reimbursed for their actual direct and in direct expenses for those services which are associated with the contract.

There are two stations that provide fire protection to the City of Atwater, these include Station 41 and Station 42. Station 41 primarily services 3.6 square miles North West part of Atwater, and responded to 3,228 total incidentsin the year 2022. It has assigned apparatusesincluding Egnine‐41, Engine‐241 (Reserve Rig), Battalion command vehicles, Utility‐41, Air Supply Fill Station Trailer, Rehab Supply Trailer. The daily staffing of station 41 includes 1 Fire Captain, 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer.

Station 42 primarily services 3 square miles in the southeast part of Atwater, and responded to 1,542 total incidents in the year 2022. It has assigned apparatuses including ladder Truck‐42, Engine‐42, Utility‐42. The accommodations of Station 42 include training grounds and classroom for Atwater City Fire, Firefighter Reserve Program, SCBA Testing and Service Station, PPE Supply/Decontamination and Service Station, Substation for Atwater Police Department. The daily staffing of station 42 includes 1 Fire Captain, 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer.

The City of Atwater and the City of Merced have a mutual aid agreement from 1993 to assist each other during fire emergencies. Additionally, the City of Atwater’s Fire Department has a First Responder Provider Agreement, established in 1993, with the County of Merced’s Department of Public Health.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐5  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

RIGGS AMBULANCE SERVICE
Merced County contracts with RIGGS Ambulance Service to provide 24/7 Advanced Life Support services to all of Merced County under an exclusive provider agreement.  This agreement outlines the minimum standards and response times that are closely monitored by the Merced County EMS Agency. RIGGS Ambulance Service also provide Basic Life Support services for standby events and long‐distance transfers.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐6

4.2 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Provided below is a discussion of the law enforcement services in the City of Atwater. The Department’s station is located at City Hall. The location of the Atwater Police Department is presented in Figure 4.0‐1.

EXISTING SETTING

ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Atwater Police Department is a full‐service law enforcement agency conducting operations 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The Department has units providing service in animal control, code enforcement, records, investigations, and general law enforcement. The Police Department provides primary 911 communications responsibilities for the City of Atwater. The Police Department is located within City Hall at 750 Bellevue Road, and there is a detective’s station in Fire Station 42.

The Atwater Police Department employs 25 full time sworn officers (as of 2022). FY 2022‐2023 budget currently funds 28 sworn officers including the Chief. The ratio of funded sworn personnel to population is .90 officers per one thousand residents. This is less than the nationwide rate of 1.7 officers per thousand population for Group IV cities in the Western United States (25,000 to 49,999 population). The status of personnel is always a concern facing the Department. The Department’s attrition rate during the year was 25% forsworn positions. The Department lost three officers to failing to complete primary training and one to failing to make the probationary period.

To support sworn operations, the Department employs a mixture of part time and full‐time civilian positions. The non‐sworn positions provide Dispatch, Clerical, Evidence and Animal Control services.

The City has a mutual aid agreement with the Merced County Sheriff’s Department. The County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement to unincorporated areas in the County and maintains a countywide response time of 20 minutes. As development occurs within the SOI and land is annexed to the City, the City has historically used a Community Facilities District as a funding tool to meet staffing, equipment, and other operating needs. More recently, Measure H was implemented to help support public safety funding.

BUDGET
The Police Department is a General Fund Department. Due to the nature of Law Enforcement, it is a resource consumer not a self‐sufficient activity. The adopted FY 22‐23 budget of the Police Department in the General Fund is 5.2 million dollars. This constitutes 30% of the City’s General Fund Budget. The total Police Department budget is 8.3 million dollars.

Revenues to support law enforcement activities come from a variety of sources. In 2013, the residents of Atwater passed “Measure H” a ½ cent Sales Tax Measure to enhance public safety. The Police Department was allocated two million dollars of the proceeds of this dedicated sales tax in FY 2023. The Department also receives approx. $650,000 in resources from a Community Facilities District, various grant programs, and the Merced County abandoned vehicle program. The Department lost itssupplemental funding for two police officer positions that were deployed to the Merced Union High School District. To offset the loss, the Department reestablished its partnership with the Atwater Elementary School District and deployed an officer to service the District with partial offsetting revenue from the district. The Department participates in several grant programsto provide needed equipment. Justice Assistance Grants and Body Armor funding from the Federal Government are used on a yearly basis.

Recently, the community passed Measure B, a 1‐centsalestax to benefit public safety in the City of Atwater.

This no sun‐setting measure ensures funding for the Police Department going forward and allows for an

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐7  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater expansion of capabilities and infrastructure. This important resource takes effect with the FY23/24 fiscal year. The Department continues to emphasize budget management looking for any cost savings available to provide diverse service to the community.

FACILITIES
The Police Department is located at 750 Bellevue Road in a wing of City Hall. This facility was constructed in 1966 and houses the 911 communications center, records, patrol operations, animal control, administration, and code enforcement. The Police Department has two satellite locations that supports its mission. The investigations unit operates from a police substation that is a wing of fire station 42 adjacent to Buhach Colony High School. The Police Department also continues to utilize a secure fenced area and Conex box at the Public Works Yard as an evidence storage facility.

FLEET
The Police Department uses a mixture of unmarked and marked vehiclesto accomplish its various missions.

At the beginning of the year there were 23 vehicles in the Department’s fleet. The average age of fleet assets was six years. The Department continued the fleet replacement program, the Department was able to purchase a patrol vehicle using surplus budget authority near the end of FY 22. Due to the shortages in police vehicles and supply chain issues, it was not placed in service until October of 2022.

The replacement of fleet assets will continue to be a challenge for the Department going forward. The supply chain issues caused by the pandemic still plague the acquisition of police vehicles and their equipment.

OTHER EQUIPMENT
The Police Department possesses a wide range of equipment to fulfill its mission. It has an enough variety of equipment to accomplish any task needed. The department added a new capability over the past year.

The Department received a donation of a 24‐foot mobile command post vehicle and equipment from the City of Grover Beach. This piece of equipment has been deployed several times during the year to major community events and incidents. It allows for the remote deployment of resources and communications gear to support Department operations away from headquarters.

There are deficiencies in spare equipment to allow for continuity of operations if a piece of equipment is out ofservice for repair. With the passage of the new revenue the department will continue to assess needs and ensure that budget resources are applied properly to address them. The Department has perfected the process of inventory control to track the purchase, depreciation, and replacement of Department Equipment. This process has allowed for the Department to purchase needed equipment on time to further the Department’s mission.

CALLS FOR SERVICE STATISTICS
In 2020 the Department handled 23,175 calls for service. In 2021 the Department handled 24,437 calls for service. In 2022 the Department handled 25,499 calls for service. The 2022 calls for service numbers represents a 4% percent increase over 2021. The continued growth in the community and the addition of a School Resource officer at AESD contributed to the increase. Officer initiated calls for service also increased by 18% from 7,488 contacts in 2021 to 8,854 in 2022. This increase is attributed to the addition of a new code enforcement officer, increased abandoned vehicle abatement, and the increase in contacts with the unhoused population. Table 4.2‐1 breaks down the comparison by year and by priority. Priority

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐8 one calls are considered emergencies and should be dispatched within a 3‐minute period. Priority two calls are where most citizen‐initiated activity is found. Priority three calls are mostly officer initiated.

TABLE 4.2‐1:  CALLS FOR SERVICE STATISTICS (2020 ‐ 2022) Category 2020 2021 2022
Priority 1 1,642 648 741
Priority 2 8,591 5,883 5,878
Priority 3 12,942 17,907 18,880
Non‐Classified 226 0 0
Total 23,401  24,438  25,499
SOURCE: ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2022 ANNUAL REPORT

CRIMES BY CATEGORY IN ATWATER
Statistics on the number of crimes by category of crime in Atwater during 2021 and 2022, as reported by the City of Atwater Police Department, are shown in Table 4.2‐2 below.

TABLE 4.2‐2:  ATWATER CRIME STATISTICS (2021 ‐ 2022)
Category/Crime 2021 2022
Total Violent Crimes 446 624
Homicide 2 5
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 2
Rape 23 16
Robbery 27 36
Assault 394 565
Total Property Crimes  1,025  728
Burglary 134 84
Larceny 704 574
Motor Vehicle Theft 187 70
Arson 0 0
SOURCE: ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2022 ANNUAL REPORT
As shown in the table, the majority of crimes committed in Atwater consist of property crimes, primarily larceny. The total number of violent crimes in the city are up 39% over 2021 from 446 to 624 reports.

However, crimes against property are down 29% over the last year. Additionally, in 2022, there have been 5 homicides reported in Atwater.

The Atwater Police Department hastaken an aggressive stance to attempt to reduce the numbers of crimes in the city. Besides proactive patrol and apprehension activities, the Atwater Police Department has conducted operationsthat have targeted gang members, persons on probation and persons on parole. The Department has also supported neighborhood watches throughout the city to provide information and help to residents to protect themselves.

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT STATISTICS
The Atwater Police Department is responsible for traffic enforcement for the City of Atwater. Besides the common writing of citationsfor traffic violations, the Departmentrespondsto and investigates all the traffic accidents that occur in the city. The city continues to average roughly one traffic accident per day during a calendar year. In 2022, the total number of traffic accidents investigated was 390. This was a decrease of

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐9  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater approximately 12.3% from 2021 to 2022. The number of vehicle accidents resulting in injury decreased by

46.3% from 54 in 2021 to 29 in 2022.

The major cause of accidents are inattention and failure to follow posted traffic signs. Reasons for the continued decline in traffic accidents may be attributed to the effects of increased public awareness and traffic enforcement in the form of a part time motor officer and effective directed patrols.

Additional crash statistics and information is included in Chapter 2.0 (Circulation) of this Existing Conditions Report.

ANIMAL CONTROL STATISTICS
The Atwater Police Department isresponsible for the animal control function for the city. Captured animals are housed at an animal control facility owned by the Merced County Sheriff’s Office. By contract, the County shelters captured animals and collects fees fines and forfeitures for the Police Department Regarding calls for service: The Unit handled 748 animal control calls for service for 2022. That averages to

2.04 calls per day. Sixty percent of calls for service on the average ended in some sort of enforcement action by Animal Control Officers. The other 40% of the calls received by the Department were either cancelled by the caller, the animal was unable to be located, or we were returning animals to their owners.

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM
The Department renewed a partnership with the Atwater Elementary School District to provide law enforcement services to all the Elementary School Sites for the 22/23 school year. Some of the services provided to the district were:

1. Criminal Investigations

2. Outreach to Students

3. School Safety Presentations

4. Traffic and Patrol functions around the schools
School Resource Officer’s(SRO) Statistics by category in Atwater during 2022 and 2023 school year isshown in Table 4.2‐3 below.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐10 TABLE 4.2‐3:  SRO STATISTICS (2022‐2023)
Category/Crime 2023
Calls for Service 404
Traffic Stops 119
Reports Taken 120
Citations Issued 92
Arrests Made 33
SOURCE: ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2022 ANNUAL REPORT

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC SAFETY
Multi‐Jurisdictional Local Government Emergency Response The Merced County Office of Emergency Services (OES) is the single coordinating center for major emergency activities. In cooperation with others, OES maintains and oversees the Multi‐Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is the Countywide disaster preparedness program. OES also provides training for first responders, businesses, and other governmental agencies.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐11  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

4.3 PARKS AND RECREATION
This section addresses the provision of parks and recreation amenities in the City of Atwater. Parks and recreational facilitiesin the City of Atwater are maintained by the Public Works Department. The Recreation and Community Events Division plans, promotes and supervises sports programs, recreational activities, and special events.

Figure 4.0‐1 identifies parks within the city.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes local regulations that guide land use decisions. Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

City of Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 12.08, City Parks The purpose of Chapter 12.08 is to regulate the use of the parks and recreation in the city in order to provide maximum enjoyment in the use of such parks and buildings and minimum disturbance or interference with the use of surrounding areas. The chapter also includes standards for prohibited hours, injuring plants and wildlife, driving motor vehicles on grass plots, riding or driving animals or vehicles upon areas other than roadways, and establishes passive parks within the city.

TYPES OF PARKS
Parks are categorized into eight Park Classifications based upon the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines. Each classification serves a specific need in the community.

Mini Park. The mini park is used to address limited, isolated, or unique recreation needs of concentrated populations. The size of a mini‐park ranges between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size. These parks may be either active or passive, but address a specific recreational need.

Neighborhood  Park. Neighborhood parks serve a variety of age groups within a limited area or neighborhood. They range in size from 1 to 15 acres. The neighborhood park includes areas for active recreation activities such as field games, court games, playgrounds, etc. Passive recreation activities may include walking, viewing, sitting, and picnicking.

Community Park. Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and serve several neighborhoods.

They range in size generally from 15 to 25 acres. The community park may include areas for intense recreation activities such as competitive sports, swimming, tennis, playgrounds, volleyball, etc. There may also be passive recreation opportunities such as walking, viewing, sitting, and picnicking.

Regional Park. Regional parks are large multi‐use parks that serve several communities within a particular region. The regional park generally provides both active and passive recreation opportunities, with a wide selection of facilities for all age groups. They may also include areas of nature preservation for activities such as sightseeing, nature study area, wildlife habitat, and conservation.

Special Use Area. Special use areas and parks are for specialized or single‐purpose recreation activities.

NRPA defines these parks as historical areas, nature centers, marinas, golf courses, zoos, conservatories, arboretums, arenas, amphitheaters, plazas, or community squares. There are no specific standards for size or acreage since each site will vary.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐12 Linear Park / Linkages. Linear parks and linkages are built connections or natural corridors that link parks together. Typically, the linear park is developed for one or more modes of recreational travels such as walking, jogging, biking, in‐line skating, hiking, and horseback riding. Linear parks may include active exercise and play areas.

Conservancy. Conservancies include areas for protection and management of the natural / cultural environment with recreation use as a secondary objective. Recreation use might include passive recreation such as viewing and studying nature and wildlife habitat.

EXISTING SETTING
The Atwater Public Works and Recreation Department manages park and recreational facilities and programming in the city, including the Atwater Community Center. Facilities within the city include developed parkland, several open space areas that serve outdoor and recreational needs, and regional facilities that serve Atwater. Table 4.3‐1 lists all of the City parks, nearby recreational facilities, and other special use spaces along with the acreages.

TABLE 4.3‐1: SUMMARY OF PARKS
Park Name  Facility Location  Acres
Local Facilities
Power Line Park City 1.73
Osborn Park City 14.22
Veterans Park City 18.06
Joan Faul Park City 10.02
Albiani Park City 5.01
Shaffer Tot Lot City 0.10
Sandlewood Park City 1.75
Heller Park City 0.74
Winton Way Park City 0.46
E.L. Walters Park City 2.27
Ralston Park City 4.67
Library Open Space City 1.25
Bloss Park City 1.69
Memorial Ball Park City 3.93
Civic Center Grounds City 4.93
Community Center Grounds City 3.69
Manue Bairos Park City 4.77
Total Area     79.29
Parkland Ratio (ac/k)   2.52
Nearby Facilities
Castle AFB Sports Fields Regional 16.77
Castle Memorial Parade Ground Regional 5.51
Regional Acres     22.27
Parkland Ratio (Local+Regional)    3.23
Other Special Use and Semi‐Public Facilities
Rancho Del Rey Golf Course City/SOI 118.29

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐13  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater As noted on Table 4.3‐1 above, within the Atwater City limits there are 79.29 park acres of parks and public open space facilities. Therefore, with a 2023 population of approximately 31,418 the current distribution of park acreage per 1,000 residents is 2.52 acres.

In addition to parks, other facilities in the city are used for recreational activities. The Atwater Community Center, located at 760 East Bellevue Road, contains a multi‐use room and a senior citizens' room, along with kitchen and restroom facilities. The Youth Center located at Veterans Park has an indoor basketball court and several activity rooms. The facility hosts a Boys and Girls Club. Another specialized recreational facility is the Rancho Del Rey golf course, a semi‐ private facility located within the southeastern section of the city, but under the jurisdiction of Merced County.

The parks and recreational facilities & improvements are funded through a Parks & Recreation Impact Fee, which is imposed on all new residential development in the city. The Parks & Recreation Impact Fee is a fee of $2,382 per detached Single‐family residential dwelling unit and $1,998 per medium/high density residential that is imposed on all new residences.

On a regional scale beyond the Atwater City limits, a county park islocated in Winton. Another county park, outside the Study Area, is Lake Yosemite northeast of Merced. This park offers boating, swimming, fishing, waterskiing, windsurfing, and picnic areas. The Merced Irrigation District manages the Lake McClure‐ McSwain Recreation area 27 miles northeast of Merced. There are campsites available, along with picnic areas, boating, waterskiing, fishing, swimming, and hiking activities. Approximately 75 miles northeast of Atwater is Yosemite National Park, a highly popular attraction offering numerous scenic vistas and recreational opportunities.

The Atwater Recreation Department plans, promotes and supervises a selection of sports programs and recreational activities for all ages which include leagues, special interest classes, specific sports clinics, toy drive, and other special events.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐14

4.4 SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES
This section addresses the provision of schools, libraries, and other community facilities in the City of Atwater. Figure 4.0‐1 provides the location of the public schools and library facilities within Atwater.

EXISTING SETTING

SCHOOL FACILITIES
The Atwater Elementary School District (AESD)  provides public school services for elementary and middle school services(K‐8) and the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) provides high school services (grades 9‐12) throughout the planning area. Table 4.4‐1 lists schools in Atwater and the most recent enrollment for each school. As shown in Table 4.4‐1, the schools in the city had a total enrollment of approximately 8,771 students, of which 4,930 were enrolled in elementary and middle school (grades K – 8) and 3,841 were enrolled in high school (grades 9 – 12). Table 4.4‐2 and 4.4‐3 provides a summary of the public school enrollment by grade within the entirety of the AESD and MUHSD.

TABLE 4.4‐1: PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVING ATWATER
School Grades
Served Address
Enrollment
2022‐2023
School Year
Elementary Schools
Aileen Colburn Elementary K‐6 2201 Heller Ave, Atwater, CA 95301 412 Bellevue Elementary K‐6 1020 E Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 680
District Office K‐8 1401 Broadway Ave, Atwater, CA
95301 1
Elmer Wood Elementary K‐6 1271 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 537 Mitchell Elementary K‐6 1761 Grove Ave, Atwater, CA 95301 553 Peggy Heller Elementary K‐8 201 Lake View Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 707 Shaffer Elementary K‐6 1434 California St, Atwater, CA 95301 534 Thomas Olaeta Elementary K‐6 2266 High St, Atwater, CA 95301 564 Intermediate Schools
Atwater Senior Academy 7‐8 1401 Broadway Ave, Atwater, CA 95301 8
Bellevue Senior Elementary 7‐8 1020 E Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 195
Mitchell Intermediate 7‐8 1753 Fifth St, Atwater, CA 95301 739 AESD Total 4,930
High Schools
Atwater High School 9‐12 2201 Fruitland Ave, Atwater, CA 95301 2,095
Buhach Colony High School 9‐12 1800 N Buhach Rd #1800, Atwater, CA 95301 1,746
MUHSD Total 3,841
SOURCES: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2022‐2023

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
4‐15  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 4.4‐2: ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, AESD (2022‐2023)
AESD
Grade Level
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2022‐2023
Total 651 503 503 532 528 562 542 577 532 0 0 0 0 4,930 SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2022‐2023, AESD TABLE 4.4‐3: ENROLLMENT BY GRADE, MUHSD (2022‐2023)
MUHSD
Grade Level
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
2022‐2023
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 979 982 943 938 3,841
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS UNIT ENROLLMENT FOR 2022‐2023, MUHSD

LIBRARY SERVICES
The Atwater Public Library, is located in Atwater at 1600 3rd Street. The Library provides information and reading material in print and electronic formats. It also provides special programs for children and teens, designed to enhance learning and encourage a lifelong love of reading. Items include books, magazines, audiobooks, large print books, DVDs, music CDs, and language learning materials.

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
Health care facilities within Atwater encompass medical clinics, specialty care, residential care facilities as well as private physicians and other medical practitioners.  Local healthcare providers include Castle Family Health Centers, Inc. (CFHC), that includes three locations that Serve Atwater, Winton, and the surrounding county.
‐ The Castle Family Health Center at the Castle facility is located in the former Castle Air Force Base Hospital in Atwater and is the largest clinic providing primary care (53 exam rooms, including pediatrics), urgent care, specialty health care services (including but not limited to optometry, cardiology, orthopedics, nephrology, ENT, infectious diseases, pulmonology, chiropractic, acupuncture and urology), radiology, laboratory, pharmacy and health education. ‐ The CFHC at the Blossfacility islocated in the former hospital of the Bloss Memorial Healthcare District in the City of Atwater. This facility houses nine exam rooms, as well as Women’s Health (seven dedicated exam rooms), and Behavioral Health (three dedicated rooms). ‐ The CFHC at the Winton clinic is located in the unincorporated community of Winton and is the newest facility with eighteen exam rooms, three behavioral health offices and five dental operatories.
‐ Dignity Health ‐ Mercy Medical Center provides regional medical service for Atwater and the surrounding community.   The hospital is located at 333 Mercy Ave in the City of Merced.

Dignity Health  ‐ Mercy Medical Center Hospital offers 24‐hour emergency care, outpatient care, and general surgical care.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 4‐16 The Merced County Department of Public Health provides maternal and child health care programming, California Children's Services, child health and disability programs, vaccinations and general public health nursing to the community. Alcohol & drug programs are also organized under the Merced County Department of Public Health and provide residential treatment, out‐patient counseling, perinatal programs and community education and information.   Mental Health programs offered by the Merced County Department of Public Health provide services to citizens of all ages who have a demonstrated mental disorder or affective disorder.   Services include but are not limited to in‐patient services, residential services, out‐patient counseling, medication monitoring and community education and referral.

CRITICAL FACILITIES
The existing General Plan defines "critical facilities" as those "which either (1) provide emergency services or (2) house or serve many people who would be injured or killed in case of disaster damage to the facility.

Examples include hospitals, fire stations, police and emergency services, utility facilities, and communications facilities." Although identification of critical facilities is not required by codes pertinent to the safety element, it serves a useful purpose. It singles out those facilities for which special maintenance plans and actions are necessary to ensure their ability to function during emergencies or to reduce the impairment of services provided by these facilities. Within the Atwater planning area, the following are considered critical facilities:
 Atwater Fire Department stations (41&42).
 Atwater Police Department building.
 Atwater City Hall (collocated with Police Department).  Merced County Fire Department Stations 82 (Atwater) and 88 (Winton).  Water supply lines and wells.
 Wastewater treatment plant, pumping stations, and trunk lines.  Major electrical transmission lines and substations.
 Major communication lines and microwave transmission facilities.

Critical facilities also include major roadways which may serve as principal evacuation routes.

City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-0

Chapter 5
Utilities
This Chapter includes the following topics:

5.1 Water

5.2 Wastewater

5.3 Stormwater and Drainage

5.4 Solid Waste

5.5 Electricity, Natural Gas, and
Telecommunications
The Utilities chapter addresses utilities within the Planning Area of the City of Atwater and surrounding areas. Utilities include the provision of water, wastewater, stormwater and drainage, solid waste services, electricity, and natural gas.

5.0 UTILITIES
5-1 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

5.0 UTILITIES
This chapter addresses utilities within the City of Atwater. Utility services include the provision of water services, wastewater (sewer) services, stormwater and drainage, solid waste disposal, electricity, and natural gas. Utilities within the city and surrounding areas are an important part to ensuring a community’s health, safety and quality of life. In an effort to identify and understand the key utility services, this chapter includes the following sections:

5.1 Water

5.2 Wastewater

5.3 Stormwater and Drainage

5.4 Solid Waste

5.5 Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-2

FINDINGS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water
Water Supply Source. The City relies solely on groundwater from multiple wells as its water supply source. The groundwater supply has declined over the last 80 years, requiring new, deeper wells and lowering of pumps in existing wells. A constraint is the limited depth of numerous municipal water wells. If the declining groundwater trend is not reversed, it may cause a reduction in pumping capacity of the City’s water system. Considering the persistent groundwater overdraft issues spanning several decades, there is a growing need for a comprehensive contingency plan to address potential water supply shortages. The City did establish an initial Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) alongside the 2015 UWMP. This WSCP is comprised of four stages, enabling the City to progressively reduce its water demand to a level that aligns with the available water supplies, with the maximum reduction being 50 percent. It is recommended to revisit and update this plan every few years to align it with the current conditions and challenges faced by the City as needed.

Water Quality. With the exception of Well 21, all of the wells currently used to supply water to the public currently exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Trichloropropane (TCP). The City has added treatment equipment to achieve compliance with California water quality standards.

Continual monitoring of the water quality is recommended along with possible opportunities to provide treatment at future storage reservoirs and wells.

Water Scarcity. California frequently faces drought conditions, which can put pressure on existing water resources. Ensuring a sustainable and reliable water supply is a significant challenge for all central California communities.

Aging Infrastructure: Many utility systems in Atwater may have aging infrastructure, which can lead to breakdowns, leaks, and service disruptions. Sometimes these systems continue to operate past their intended life span, and sometimes they are inadequate altogether to meet the needs of a growing community. Ensuring utility capacity to accommodate existing and future development will ensure adequate services and quality of life
Limited City Resources. Despite steady economic growth over the long term, without intervention, the City’s expenditures could grow faster than revenues. The growth rate in revenues from taxes and fees tend to lag the growth rate of personnel, utility, fuel, and other costs. Simultaneously, the City will require significant new investments in capital and services to maintain current infrastructure and quality of life. These trends, when coupled with limitations on the ability of local governments in California to generate new sources of revenue, create continual pressure to reduce government services or continue deferring capital investments. In times of economic downturn, these limitations can lead to dramatic reductions in government services at precisely when those services are most needed by residents.

Opportunities for adding more capacity and resiliency to the City’s water supply include the additional storage and new wells. Recommendations have been made within the Water Master Plan to add an additional 2.2 MG of storage (and associated pumping facilities). This will help mitigate existing storage deficiencies identified under existing demand conditions. Construction of Well 22 (and then Well 23) will also help mitigate the existing storage capacity deficiency and will increase the City’s groundwater supply capacity to meet the existing maximum day demand.

To improve the distribution system, it has been recommended in the Water Master Plan to replace the small 4-inch piping with larger 8-inch pipelines, which will improve fire flow to residential areas.

Strategic pipe alignments are also being considered to connect affected areas to larger diameter

5.0 UTILITIES
5-3 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater pipelines. This plan includes replacing approximately 75,600 linear feet of 4-inch pipe, primarily in central Atwater. Additionally, proper looping is recommended to reduce pressure losses and supply fluctuations, ensuring a more reliable water supply.

To adequately meet future demands the City will need to expand its water infrastructure. Based on the findings of the 2019 Water Master Plan, the City anticipates needing to:
• Construct up to 10 new groundwater wells.
• Construct between 4 to 6 MG of additional storage (beyond the 2.2 MG that is currently planned) and associated booster pumping capacity, depending on the capacity of the new groundwater wells.
• Continue to replace existing pipelines and construct new pipelines to growth areas.

Wastewater
The optimal functioning of the sewer collection system and Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) are crucial.

Recent measures and observations have identified issues and opportunities for improvement. Addressing identified issues and opportunities within the sewer collection system and WWTP is essential for an efficient wastewater management system.

In recent years, the City has proactively addressed challenges in the sewer collection system and WWTP. The rehabilitation of the Applegate Lift Station, on the northeast corner of 1501 Sycamore, marked a milestone, involving above-ground relocation of pumps and motors to enhance maintenance access and operational reliability. The station's capacity remained unchanged, but the addition of a standby pump improved operational resilience.

The City is actively upgrading the Castle Sewer Lift Station to above ground relocation of pumps and motors, similar to what was done at the Applegate Lift Station.

Collection System. The sewer distribution piping requires comprehensive repair and replacement to address deficiencies and provide capacity for future development. Conducting a Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) study is an opportunity to create a tool for project planning, identifying areas needing improvements and ensuring long-term collection system efficiency.

WWTP Capacity Expansion. The WWTP is critical, and to meet future growth demands, its capacity should be expanded from 6 mgd to 8 mgd over the next ten years to support future affordable housing developments. This expansion is essential for the WWTP to remain at the forefront of wastewater treatment and promote community sustainability.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-4

5.1 WATER SERVICES
The City of Atwater provides water services to its businesses and residents. The City’s most recent Water Master Plan Update was completed in 2019 and the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) was finalized in March 2022. The purpose of the UWMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions. Figure 5.1-

1. Shows the City’s existing water facilities.

The City's water supply primarily relies on groundwater from the Merced Subbasin (Figure 5.1-2)

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes local regulations that guide land use decisions. Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

Merced Irrigation District (MID)
The Merced Irrigation District (MID) was formed on December 8, 1919. It is comprised of a service area spanning more than 164,000 gross acres Figure 5.1-3). Of that, approximately 132,000 are irrigable acres with 100,000 of them receiving MID water. The total distribution system of MID spans 862 miles. It is comprised of natural waterways, unlined and lined canals, sloughs and pipelines.

MID holds some of the most senior water rights in the state, owning and operating Lake McClure in the foothills of the western Sierra Nevada. The reservoir has a capacity of approximately 1,025,000 acre feet.

MID operates it for water storage, flood control, recreation, and hydroelectric generation, among other things. In addition to benefitting local agriculture and groundwater resources, the reservoir provides incalculable environmental benefits, including for migrating salmon.

Water is diverted below New Exchequer Dam from two locations along the Merced River: MID’s Main Canal and its Northside Canal. MID’s water conveyance system spans more than 860 miles and serves approximately 2,200 growers. The vast majority of them represent generational family farms spanning fewer than 50 acres.

MID also maintains 215 wells in support of its conjunctive management activities for groundwater and surface water.

Merced Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to oversee the development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), with the ultimate goal of achieving sustainable management of California’s groundwater basins. The purpose of the GSP is to bring the Merced Groundwater Basin, a critically overdrafted basin located within the San Joaquin Valley, into sustainable groundwater management by 2040.

The Subbasin is heavily reliant on groundwater, and users recognize the basin has been in overdraft for a long period of time.

5.0 UTILITIES
5-5 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater The County of Merced and water districts and cities within the Merced Subbasin formed three GSAs in accordance with SGMA: Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MSGSA), and Turner Island Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency #1 (TIWD GSA-1). The three GSAs coordinated efforts to develop the GSP for the Subbasin. With the adoption of this GSP, the GSAs will adopt the following sustainability goal for the Merced Subbasin:
“Achieve sustainable groundwater management on a long-term average basis by increasing recharge and/or reducing groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results.” This goal will be achieved by allocating a portion of the estimated Subbasin sustainable yield to each of the three GSAs and coordinating the implementation of programs and projects to increase both direct and in-lieu groundwater recharge, which will in turn increase the groundwater and / or surface water available in the Subbasin.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-6

EXISTING SETTING

DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS
The City provides water service to areas within Atwater’s City limits. The water system delivers water to residences, commercial establishments, manufacturing plants, institutional facilities, and local parkland. In addition, Atwater sells water to the Castle Commerce Center and Airport, the former Castle Air Force Base, and existing airport-related businesses. The Public Works Department maintains the City’s water collection and distribution system.

The City's water supply primarily relies on groundwater from the Merced Subbasin. The City owns and operates eight groundwater wells. Wells 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21, are active and have a total current available pumping capacity of approximately 13,900 gallons per minute (gpm). Well 21 is intended to directly serve a federal prison. The total capacity without Well 21 is 12,200 gpm. The largest threat to the City’s drinking water is water quality.

All wells except Well 21 currently exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). Treatment has been included at all wells that exceed MCL for TCP using granular active carbon. Well 15 also has had historic elevated levels of dibromochloropropane (DBCP). Treatment equipment for Well 15 was installed near the site to address these concerns. Well 13 was previously on standby due to elevated levels of ethylene dibromide (EDB) but is currently active and supplies water to the system on an as-needed basis. Well 20 historically had overheating problems during the summer and occasionally had to be shut down. It also previously had water quality problems, including elevated iron and manganese levels. Well 20 is currently being rehabilitated to include treatment equipment atthe site and is projected to be active by the end of 2023.

Additionally, the detection of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as PFAS at Well 16 and 18 through U.S. Air Force sampling. All active wells are disinfected with sodium hypochlorite for maintaining chlorine residual in the distribution system.

The City maintains a centrally located elevated steel reservoir with a 1.0 million-gallon (MG) capacity which holds operational and fire flow storage. The City, in collaboration with the United States Bureau of Prisons, constructed Well 21, with a pumping capacity of approximately 1,700 gpm. This facility includes two 0.5-MG ground-level reservoirs that provide storage to both the prison and the City's distribution system, a hydropneumatic tank system, and a booster pump station to serve the prison. The booster pump station consists of three 40-horsepower parallel booster pumps, along with a fire pump capable of meeting the prison's fire flow demands. To provide an emergency water supply to the prison in the event of a loss to of Well 21, a one-mile-long, 12-inch pipeline connects the prison to the City’s main system.

The prison's current water demand is approximately 900 gpm, and any surplus water from Well 21 (up to about 800 gpm) can be conveyed back to the City’s main distribution system via the 12-inch diameter pipeline, provided that all three 450-gpm booster pumps are operational. This surplus capacity can be used by the City by manually adjusting the flow control valve at the pump station.

The City is currently developing a new well to supplement the City’s groundwater supplies. The new well (designated as Well 22) is estimated to have a capacity of approximately 1,500 gpm and is located in north Atwater, as shown in Figure 5.1-1.

POTABLE WATER EXISTING DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE
The City's distribution system primarily consists of ductile iron pipe, supplemented by asbestos cement, castiron, and polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe segments with line sizes ranging from 4 to 14 inches in diameter.

There is only one pressure zone throughout the City’s main system, which is generally maintained between

5.0 UTILITIES
5-7 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater 45 and 65 pounds per square inch (psi) per the 2019 Water Master Plan. The City currently maintains a program for flushing the entire distribution system once per year. Figure 5.1-1. Shows the City’s existing water facilities.

TU
TU
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
n7
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
17 13
14 15
21 19
16 20
18 22
Figure 5.1-1. Existing Water Facilities
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
n7 Active Wells
n7 Rehab Wells
n7 Future Wells
TU Reservoirs
Water Pipes 4 inches
Water Pipes 6 inches
Water Pipes 8 inches
Water Pipes 10 inches
Water Pipes 12 inches
Water Pipes 14 inches
Future Pipe 8 inches
Future Pipe 10 inches
Future Pipe 12 inches
Current Atwater City Limits
Current Sphere of Influence Areas
General Plan Update Area
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023
Prison

M A D E R A C O U N T Y

M A R I P O S A

C O U N T Y

M E R C E D C O U N T Y

S T A N I S L A U S

C O U N T Y
UV152
UV59
UV99
UV99
UV108
UV99
UV152
UV233
UV59
UV49
UV140 UV140
UV140
UV165
UV165
UV33
UV33
UV132 UV132
§¨¦5
Lake
Mcclure
Modesto
Reservoir
Dawson
Lake
Turlock Lake
Brush
Lake
Kelsey
Reservoir
Burns
Reservoir
Bear
Reservoir
Yosemite Lake
Owens
Reservoir
Mariposa
Reservoir
Little Buttonwillow
Lake Berenda
Reservoir
Big
Buttonwillow Lake
O`Neill
Forebay
San Luis
Reservoir
Flat
Pond
Big Water
Lake
Waterford
Newman
Modesto
Ceres
Hughson
Turlock
Patterson
Gustine
Los Banos
Livingston
Atwater
Merced
Chowchilla

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
- MODESTO

SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY -

TURLOCK

SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY -

CHOWCHILLA

SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY -
MERCED

SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY -

DELTA-MENDOTA

SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY -
MADERA
Figure 5.1-2. Groundwater Basins
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater August 31, 2023
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; DWR; USGS Roads Database. 0 2½ 5
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
County Boundary
Incorporated Area
Groundwater Basins
San Joaquin Valley - Chowchilla
San Joaquin Valley - Delta-Mendota
San Joaquin Valley - Madera
San Joaquin Valley - Merced
San Joaquin Valley - Modesto
San Joaquin Valley - Turlock

M E R C E D C O U N T Y
UV59
UV59
UV99
UV99
UV99
UV99
UV140 UV140 UV140
Livingston
Atwater
Merced
Turlock
Irrigation
District
Ballico-Cortez
Water
District
Winton Water
And Sanitary
District
A V
Thomas
Produce
US Air
Force  Castle
Air Force Base
Merced National
Wildlife Refuge
Merced
Irrigation
District
Figure 5.1-3. Water Districts
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater August 31, 2023
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; DWR; USGS Roads Database. 0 1½
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Incorporated Area
Water Districts
A V Thomas Produce
Ballico-Cortez Water District
Merced Irrigation District
Merced National Wildlife Refuge
Turlock Irrigation District
US Air Force Castle Air Force Base
Winton Water And Sanitary District

5.0 UTILITIES
5-11 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

POTABLE WATER EXISTING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Current water supply is groundwater from the Merced Subbasin, Basin Number 5-22-04, located in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (groundwater basin). The groundwater aquifer from which the City obtains its water is not adjudicated. An adjudication consists of a groundwater basin in which allrightsto water could be defined by a court. As a non-adjudicated basin, there are no defined legal pumping rights for the City and there are no legal constraints on groundwater pumping.

The availability of the City’s water supplies in normal years are described in Chapter 6 of the 2020 UWMP and summarized in Table 5.1-1. The City’s normal year supplies are adequate to meet projected normal year demands. Because the City relies solely on groundwater, the demand and supply are set equal as long as the demand is less than the capacity of the wells in the City’s water system.

TABLE 5.1-1: NORMAL YEAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
Annual Water Supply 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply Totals (acre-feet) 8,559 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838 Demand Totals (acre-feet) 8,559 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES: VOLUMES FOR SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, AND COMMERCIAL WERE ESTIMATED BECAUSE THESE USE TYPES ARE ONLY PARTIALLY METERED.

VOLUMES WERE INCREASED BASED ON THE RATIO OF TOTAL SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND THE NUMBER OF METERED SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH USE TYPE.

UNITS FROM THE 2020 UWMP PER TABLE 2-3.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2023
In the 2020 UWMP, the City accounted for a 20 percent reduction in water supply and demand compared to typical years, specifically for the purpose of planning. This reduction was applied to the projected single dry year from 2020 to 2040. The analysis of this reduced supply and demand showed that the City's resources would be sufficient to meet the demands during a single dry year. The analysis extended to a more severe scenario, considering a five-consecutive-year drought condition, examining the driest five-year historical sequence for the supplier. In this case as well, the City's water supply and demand were found to be adequate to meet the projected demands according to the 2020 UWMP analysis.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-12

GROUNDWATER BASIN DESCRIPTION
Current water supply is groundwater from the Merced Subbasin, Basin Number 5-22-04, located in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (groundwater basin). The groundwater aquifer from which the City obtains its water is not adjudicated. An adjudication consists of a groundwater basin in which all rights to water could be defined by a court. As a non-adjudicated basin, there are no current defined legal pumping rights for the City and there are no legal constraints on groundwater pumping.

The Merced Subbasin is considered a high-priority basin facing critical overdraft conditions. The City, along with other members of the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), is actively implementing measures outlined in the recently adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

These actions are aimed at achieving sustainable management of the groundwater basin, including the equitable allocation of the estimated sustainable yield among the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs).

Portions of the San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin have been in a state of overdraft for many years, including the Merced Subbasin. The California Water Plan Update – Bulletin 160-98 estimated the average overdraft in the San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin to be 239,000 AF in 1995. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City over the past five years is provided in Table 5.1-2.

TABLE 5.1-2: GROUNDWATER VOLUME PUMPED
Location or Basin Name 2016* 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020*
San Joaquin River 6,664 7,164 7,970 8,157 8,559
NOTES: * UNITS OF MEASURE (AF, CCF, MG).

SOURCE: CITY OF ATWATER 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN According to the Water Master Plan, groundwater data spanning over the past 80 years reveals a net decline in the basin water levels. Despite this decline, recent demand trends indicate a stable situation where the basin can adequately meet existing water demands. While the basin is currently in overdraft, the stability observed in recent years is contingent upon maintaining current pumping levels. City water use efficiencies have improved in recent years, but future well rehabilitation and deepening may be necessary to address declining water levels because of increased population.

SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES
The City does not receive any water supply from surface water.

RECYCLED WATER SUPPLIES
No recycled water is currently being used in the City’s service area.

5.0 UTILITIES
5-13 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

5.2 WASTEWATER
The following provides a description of wastewater service in Atwater, including applicable local regulatory programs, existing wastewater services and infrastructure, and supply and demand conditions within the city. The wastewater generated by the City of Atwater is treated and disposed of at the City of Atwater Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The wastewater collection and treatment evaluation is presented below. The sewer collection system infrastructure that serves the City is shown on Figure 5.2-1.

KEY TERMS
Effluent: Effluent is an outflowing of water from a natural body of water, or from a man-made structure.

Effluent in the man-made sense is generally considered to be water pollution, such as the outflow from a sewage treatment facility or the wastewater discharge from industrial facilities. In the context of waste water treatment plants, effluent that has been treated is sometimes called secondary effluent, or treated effluent.

NPDES: Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

WWTP: Wastewater treatment plant. Treatment of wastewater may include the following processes:
screening to remove large waste items; grit removal to allow sand, gravel, and sediment to settle out; primary sedimentation where sludge can settle out of the wastewater; secondary treatment to substantially degrade the biological content of the sewage; tertiary treatment to raise the quality of the effluent before it is discharged; and, discharge.

Septic Systems: On-site systems, commonly referred to as septic systems, are useful for handling the wastewater disposal needs of individual dwellings or commercial establishments for which connection to community facilities is not feasible. An on-site system consists of a septic tank that receives wastewater, allows the heavier solids to settle in the tank, and releases the remainder to an attached leach field. The leach field consists of underground perforated parallel lines through which water can seep into the surrounding soil. The solids which settled out of the wastewater in the septic tank must be periodically removed. Septic tanks work well in areas of low-density development where there is sufficient room to separate leach lines from potable water wells and lines. On-site systems are relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain, and contribute to water recharge in the area. However, on-site systems require certain soil conditions, topography, and water table conditions in order to work. If the proper conditions are not present, the leach field can become saturated and groundwater may become contaminated.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-14

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes laws and regulations that guide land use decisions. Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

City of Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Sewer Service Chapter 13.08, Sewer Services, providesfor the maximum possible beneficial public use of the City's sewage collection and treatment facilities through adequate regulation of sewer construction, sewer use and industrial wastewater discharges; to provide for equitable distribution of the cost associated with such facilities; and to provide procedures for complying with requirements placed upon the City by other regulatory agencies.

EXISTING SETTING

WASTEWATER COLLECTION
The City’s existing sewer system consists of about 69 miles of pipelines ranging from 4 inches to 36 inches in diameter. Residential, commercial, and industrial developments are served by the City’s sewer system.

The system is primarily gravity flow, but lift stations are used throughout the City due to flat topography.

There are 21 lift stations in the City’s sewer network (AECOM, 2018). The City's sewer network flows from the north to the former Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) site at Commerce Avenue and the Atwater Drain, south of Highway 99. From there, it is pumped 6 miles south through a force main (a pressurized pipeline) to the newly constructed WWTP on Bert Crane Road.

The City’s sewer collection system is not subject to measurable dry weather infiltration, as the City does not experience high groundwater levels. This characteristic contributes to the overall efficiency and reliability of the wastewater infrastructure.

At the discharge point of the former WWTP, a complex sewer collection system comprised of maintenance holes, pipes, and force mains from multiple sources converges south of Highway 99, directing flow to the new WWTP. This collection system includes:
• 24-inch and 21-inch sewer mains from the City collection system • A 12-inch force main from Winton
• An 18-inch gravity main serving the industrial area north of Highway 99 • A 12-inch gravity main along Commerce Avenue
• A 33-inch Castle Airport sewer interceptor
These sources combine in maintenance holes linked by 36-inch pipes, flowing into the influent pump station wet well, which maintains a steady sewage level, resulting in a 2-foot tailwater condition within the sewer pipes. This complex collection system may have been simplified by the construction of a new influent pump station, discharging into two 24-inch force mains leading to the new WWTP.

OTHER EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEMS
The Castle Airport area, northeast of the City, is serviced by a dedicated lift station and a 33-inch diameter interceptor sewer. Castle Airport encompasses the former Castle Air Force Base, which now houses the Castle Airport, the federal prison, Castle Gardens, and what was previously Air Force off-base housing (now repurposed for single-family residential land use). The sewage from this region bypasses the City's sewer network entirely. The ultimate contractual flow obligation for this area is 1.95 million gallons per day (mgd), although current flows are in the range of 0.3 to 0.4 mgd. Even when conveying the full 1.95 mgd, the

5.0 UTILITIES
5-15 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater interceptor pipeline would only be approximately 35 percent full, leaving ample capacity within the interceptor for potential future increases (AECOM, 2010). Sewage from the old Castle Air Force Base offbase housing area is pumped to the Castle Airport pumping station. This area will eventually transition to a low-density residential development
The Winton Water and Sanitary District (WWSD) service area is northwest of the City. WWSD operates independently of the City's collection system, conveying sewage via a 12-inch force main to the collection system mentioned above, and routed to the new WWTP. The flow is within the range of 0.6 to 0.7 mgd, well below the ultimate contractual flow obligation of 2.0 mgd (AECOM, 2010). Initial estimates suggest a velocity of around 4 feet per second within the force main at a full 2.0 mgd. For optimal system performance, it is recommended to assess the impact on pressure junctions and pipes if flows from Winton exceed 2.0 mgd in the future.

EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
In 2012, a new WWTP with a capacity of 6 mgd was successfully constructed. The project encompassed all wastewater treatment processes, spanning from the headworks to ultraviolet disinfection. Solids management is efficiently handled through aerobic digesters and screw presses. The project also involved construction of several new buildings, including a 3,200 square-foot administration building that houses a laboratory, electrical power facilities, instrumentation, and support spaces. Additionally, two preengineered metal buildings were erected as part of the project. The first is a maintenance building, designed to serve as both a vehicle and equipment service area, complete with office space. The second is dedicated to equipment cleaning and storage. The site work included the installation of over 500 precast piles and comprehensive site grading to provide protection against 100-year floods. Notably, this project received recognition as the recipient of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Sacramento Section's Wastewater Project of the Year award.

The WWTP is equipped with advanced treatment capabilities to meet the stringent discharge requirements set by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to discharge to a drain/canal considered as waters of the United States. The treatment plant has been designed with future expansion in mind to accommodate increased flow up to 12 mgd resulting from ongoing development.

The ultimate discharge point for the WWTP remains the same as the previous WWTP. In 1978, Joseph Gallo and the City of Atwater made an agreement for Gallo Farms to utilize up to 6 mgd of treated wastewater from the WWTP. Presently, roughly 90 percent of this treated wastewater is discharged into the Atwater Drain, where it undergoes land application or disposal. The water then travels about 5 miles downstream to the Joseph Gallo Ranch. During the irrigation season, all the treated water from the Atwater Drain is used for crop irrigation on the Gallo Ranch. Any surplus water continues through the Gallo Ranch to the Bert Crane Sunshine Ranch, now owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which has been restored to wetland habitat. During the winter months, most of the treated water reaching the Gallo Ranch is redirected to the USFWS wetland habitat.

Longview Ave
N Winton Way
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave
W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Grove Ave
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
UTWWTP
UTWWTP
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
Figure 5.2-1. Existing Sewer Facilities
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Gravity Mains
Force Main
UTWWTP New WWTP
UTWWTP Old WWTP
Current Atwater City Limits
Current Sphere of Influence
Areas
General Plan Update Area
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023
Prison

5.0 UTILITIES
5-17 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

WASTEWATER FLOWS AND TREATMENT CAPACITY
The WWTP is owned by the City but operated by a private contractor, Veolia Water North America, West.

The WWTP is responsible for receiving and processing wastewater originating from the City, the WWSD, and Castle Airport. The WWTP has a capacity of 6 mgd but is also designed to allow for expansion. This expansion, when needed, will allow the WWTP to handle flows from future development in all service areas.

The 2020 average daily flow was 3.24 mgd (City of Atwater, 2023). This value corresponds to approximately 54 percent of the current average daily permitted treatment plant capacity. In 2022, the average daily flow into the facility went down to 3.08 mgd (City of Atwater, 2023), representing approximately 50 percent of the permitted flow capacity. Examining historical influent flow data from 1997 to 2016, the average daily influent flow during this period was 3.23 mgd, with the highest recorded flow observed at 3.5 mgd in 2007, coinciding with a real estate market boom (AECOM, 2018). Historical population and wastewater flow rates are summarized in Table 5.2-1.

TABLE 5.2-1: HISTORICAL POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOW RATES Year Population Average Annual Daily Flow,
(mgd)
2010 28,258 3.35
2015 29,086 2.97
2020 31,970 3.24
2022 32,372 3.08
NOTES: POPULATIONS REPORTED BY THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU: 2020 POPULATION RECORDED IN APRIL OF 2020 AND 2022 IS A POPULATION ESTIMATE VALUE FROM JULY 2022. ALL OTHER POPULATIONS LISTED ABOVE ARE RECORDED IN THE 2018 ATWATER SEWER MASTER PLAN..

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2023
The City's wastewater is comprised of two main components: 1) base wastewater flow (BWF) from residential, commercial, and industrial sources and 2) infiltration/inflow (I/I) from extraneous groundwater and stormwater. I/I enters the sewers through defects or storm drain cross connections. BWF follows a consistent daily pattern, with peak flow in the early to mid-morning. I/I varies with groundwater levels and rainfall, peaking during heavy rainstorms based on the storm intensity and duration. Groundwater infiltration is most prevalent in late winter and early spring. Dry weather groundwater infiltration combined with BWF, is termed 'average dry weather flow' (ADWF). Peak dry weather flow (PDWF) is the highest hourly dry weather flow, and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) includes I/I during major storms. In Atwater, minimal dry weather infiltration occurs due to low groundwater.

FUTURE LOADING
Since the sewer flow rate fluctuates during the day, sewer pipe sizes are not designed for the average flow but instead for peak flows. To properly estimate the sewer capacity required to carry flow from various tributary areas, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the average daily flow generated and the maximum or PWWF experienced. The PWWF is then used to determine the necessary hydraulic capacity and, therefore, the size of the sewer.

The analysis performed with the 2018 Sewer Master Plan also concluded that there is no immediate need to expand the treatment plant. While the system was assessed using the 'historic' flow rates, which represent the average flows from Winton and Castle Airport in 2009, the final analysis results are based on the 'contract' flow rates to capture the complete sewer load potential. These projects go through buildout of the City’s General Plan (not yet complete). Table 4-3 from the 2018 Sewer Master plan is shown below in Table 5.2-2. This table summarizes the predicted wastewater flow rates.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-18 TABLE 5.2-2: PREDICTED WASTEWATER FLOW RATES FROM 2018 SEWER MASTER PLAN Planning Year
Winton,
Present
Flows
Winton,
Contract
Amount
Castle
Airport,
Present
Flow)
Castle
Airport,
Contract
Amount
City of
Atwater
Total with
Contract
Amounts
Average Day Flows, mgd
2009 0.73(b) 1.00(c) 0.42(b) 0.95(c) 3.05 5.00
2017 (existing) 0.73(b) 1.00(c) 0.42(b) 0.95(c) 3.07 5.00 Midterm -- 2.00(d) -- 1.95(d) 4.05 8.00
Buildout (2020) -- 2.00(d) -- 1.95(d) 6.52 10.47
Peak Day Flows, mgd
2009 0.73(b) 1.00(c) 0.42(b) 0.95(c) 3.80 7.28
2017 (existing) 0.73(b) 1.00(c) 0.42(b) 0.95(c) 3.45 7.28 Midterm -- 2.00(d) -- 1.95(d) 4.55 10.19
Buildout (2020) -- 2.00(d) -- 1.95(d) 7.33 14.50
NOTES:
a) CASTLE AIRPORT CONSISTS OF THE ENTIRE OLD AIRFORCE BASE, THE FEDERAL PRISON (0.2 MGD), CASTLE GARDENS AND THE OLD AIR FORCE OFF-BASE HOUSING REDEVELOPED FOR SINGLE RESIDENTIALS HOUSING. b) FLOW VALUES REFLECT THE ACTUAL FLOWS FROM WINTON OR CASTLE AIRPORT AS OF 2009 RECORDS. THE SAME NUMBER WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE 2017 REPORT UPDATE.
c) FLOW VALUES REFLECT THE CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT THE CITY’S WWTP IS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT FROM WINTON AND CASTLE AIRPORT.

AS OF 2009 WINTON HAS A CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT OF 1 MGD AND CASTLE AIRPORT HAS A CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT OF 0.95 MGD. THE OLD OFF-BASE HOUSING IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CITY OF ATWATER FLOWS (0.105 MGD) AND NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE 0.95 MGD. d) FOR THE MIDTERM AND BUILDOUT FUTURE SYSTEM, A PREDICTED 2.0 MGD SEWER LOADING FROM WINTON AND A 1.95 MGD SEWER LOADING FROM CASTLE AIRPORT ARE ASSUMED. A PREDICTED 0.71 MGD SEWER LOADING FROM THE OFF-BASE HOUSING WAS ALSO ASSUMED FOR BUILDOUT ONLY (0.105 MGD FOR MIDTERM). THE OFF-BASE HOUSING FLOWS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CITY OF ATWATER FLOWS, NOT THE 0.95 OR 1.95 CASTLE AIRPORT FLOWS.
e) THESE VALUES REPRESENT THE CITY SEWER LOADS PEAKED BY THE AVERAGE PEAK FLOW FROM THAT YEAR. FUTURE PEAK FLOWS ARE CALCULATED BASED ON THE SAME PEAKING RATIO FROM CURRENT PLANNING YEAR.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2023

5.0 UTILITIES
5-19 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

5.3 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE
The City of Atwater and the Merced Irrigation District (MID) are the two responsible agencies for stormwater collection, and drainage in Atwater. Key areas of responsibility include the maintaining and improvements to streets, sewer, and storm drains. For additional information related to flooding see Chapter 6.0 (Hazards and Safety) Section 6.1 (Flooding Hazards).

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes local laws and regulations that guide land use decisions.

Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

Merced Stormwater Resources Plan
The Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Authority (MIRWMA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) composed of MID, Merced County, and the cities of Merced, Atwater, and Livingston, has prepared the Merced Storm Water Resources Plan (SWRP) for and in coordination with the Merced Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Region. The purpose of MIRWMA is to implement the concept of integrated water projects in the Merced Region and in collaboration with adjacent regions under the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) IRWM program, and to coordinate obtaining project funding through grants offered under the DWR IRWM program and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Storm Water Resources Program. The Region Advisory Committee (RAC) was formed for the purposes of these two efforts and represents a broad cross-section of stakeholders in the area that MIRWMA intends to coordinate with as part of achieving best water management in the region. MRIWMA is currently engaged in pursuing grant funding for flood control, water supply, recharge and other water monitoring projects in addition to its effort under the Merced Storm Water Resources Plan.

City of Atwater, Post-Construction Standards Plan
This Post-Construction Standards Plan was prepared for the City of Atwater to guide project proponents and municipal plan checkers through the various site design requirements of the Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) Permit. The purpose of the plan is to incorporate Federal and State regulations, regional collaborative approach taken by many Central Valley municipalities, postconstruction site design requirements, and the roles and responsibilities of the plan checker and project proponent.

EXISTING SETTING

STORMWATER
The City’s storm drainage system primarily consists of man-made irrigation canals that carry storm runoff and two drainage MID canals that provide drainage from the City. The canals transport stormwater from the City, and the stormwater eventually drains to the San Joaquin River. The City drains a major portion of its storm drain water through the Atwater Drain, south of the City. The Atwater Drain has a fixed discharge rate; thus, the City has to meter the flows through the small channel.

The City has an agreement with MID for storm water discharge that includes a fee for maintenance of the canal system. MID has a limited amount of storm water to be disposed of through its irrigation system, due to the canal system having less capacity as it moves downstream. MID sets a maximum rate of discharge for each development, and the water from the development is metered into the canal system. MID requires that discharge into their facilities must cease whenever the facility at the point of discharge cannot carry

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-20 any additional flow. It also requires that the interface between the collection and disposal systems must have a detention basin, which collects any runoff that cannot be discharged into the MID facility until capacity within the facility becomes available.

In addition, the system consists of catch basins that collect runoff water from the street, pump stations that are used to remove stormwater from sections of road that cannot be drained by gravity, pipes of various sizes, as well as a detention basin to prevent flooding. Atwater covers all costs of maintaining drainage facilities and infrastructure except in the case of the MID facilities used by the City. Discharge from within the City flows to MID facilities. The maintenance costs of these shared facilities are borne by Atwater and the MID based on percentage of usage. At the time of the 2010 MSR Review, Atwater provided 60 percent of maintenance costs and the MID supplies 40 percent.

For approval, new development projects must provide acceptable on-and off-site storm drainage infrastructure at the proponent’s sole expense and comply with State storm drainage policies, the City of Atwater Municipal Code guidelines and Post-Construction Standards Plan. Applicants must submit a grading and drainage plan for review as part of the development approval process.

5.0 UTILITIES
5-21 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

5.4 SOLID WASTE

EXISTING SETTING

WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
Solid waste, recycling and organics are collected in Atwater through contracts with private solid waste service provider Mid Valley Disposal. Mid Valley Disposal provides businesses, multi-family, and singlefamily homes with a broad range of trash, recycling, and organics cart services. Mid Valley Disposal provides weekly service to customers with a 2-3-cart container package. Customers receive separate 96-gallon carts for trash, mixed recyclables, and organic waste. Mid Valley Disposal also provides 1-cubic yard through 6- cubic yard front load containers. Mid Valley Disposal uses a combination of pickup trucks equipped with large rear-mounted bins and regular front loader garbage trucks to collect waste within the service area.

The collection of industrial wastes, including construction and demolition debris, is not bound to the exclusivity agreement and may be collected by any service provider that holds both a City of Atwater Business License and a current and valid Industrial Waste Collection Permit. Funding for Mid Valley Disposal solid waste collection services are generated from collection fees imposed on all residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Collection occurs on a weekly basis. The rates are based on Mid Valley Disposal’s contract with the City of Atwater and are increased according to the Consumer Price Index.

WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
All solid waste generated within the city would be collected and transported to the Merced County Landfill (Highway 59 Landfill), located in eastern Merced County. At present, the Merced County Landfill is the only landfill within the jurisdiction of Merced County that is permitted to accept solid waste for disposal. The maximum tons per day (tpd) allowed at the Merced County Landfill is 1,500. The landfill has a total capacity of 30 million cubic yards. The Merced County Landfill is classified as a Class III landfill (a facility at which protection is provided to water quality from municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes) with a maximum permitted capacity of 30,012,352 cubic yards.

Table 5.4-1 details the landfills existing daily capacity of the Highway 59 Landfill. As shown below, the Highway 59 Landfill has a maximum Daily Throughput of 1,500 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 28,025,334 cubic yards of solid waste.

TABLE 5.4-1: LANDFILLS EXISTING DAILY CAPACITY AND ESTIMATES CLOSURE DATE Landfill Location
Maximum Daily
Throughput
(Tons/Day)
Remaining Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Anticipated
Closure Date
Highway 59 Landfill
(24-AA-0001)
7040 N State
Highway 59,
Merced, CA
95348
1,500 28,025,334 1/1/2030
SOURCE: CAL RECYCLE. ACCESSED 2023.

SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES AND VOLUMES
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) tracks and monitors solid waste generation rates on a per capita basis. Per capita solid waste generation rates and total annual solid waste disposal volumes for the Merced County between 2017 and 2021 are shown in Table 5.4-2 below.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-22 TABLE 5.4-2: SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES IN MERCED COUNTY Year
Waste Generation Rates
(pounds/person/day) Total Disposal Tonnage (tons/year)
Per Resident Per Employee
2021 6.9 24.6 360,018.15
2020 6.0 21.0 313,670.45
2019 5.4 18.6 282,484.30
2018 5.2 18.0 264,644.86
2017 5.4 18.7 268,667.98
SOURCE: HTTPS://WWW2.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV/LGCENTRAL/ANNUALREPORTING/DIVERSIONDISPOSAL ACCESSED JULY 2023.

As shown in the Table 5.4-2 above, the per capita per resident waste generation rate increased from 5.4 to

6.9lbs/person/day over the 5-year (2017-2021) period, and the total annual disposal tonnage in Merced County increased by 91,350.17 tons over the 2017 to 2021 time span. With the passage of SB 1016, per capita disposal rate is used to determine the diversion progress of a county and not the jurisdictional diversion rates. Therefore, a population increase resulting in the generation of more overall county waste does not affect the jurisdiction’s ability to meet its waste goals.

As shown in the above table, for the years 2017 through 2021, the per capita waste generation rate in Merced County was at the lowest level in 2018; and the total annual disposal tonnage in Merced County was at their lowest level (during this period) in 2018. Merced County achieved the County’s per capita disposal target rates for 2021 of 10.7 and 38.8 pounds per person per day for residents and employees, respectively, as established by CalRecycle.

5.0 UTILITIES
5-23 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

5.5 ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The following discussion describes the electricity and natural gas services that are available to the City of Atwater.

EXISTING SETTING

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electrical power is provided within the City of Atwater by either Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) or the Merced Irrigation Company (MID).

Major electrical transmission lines run through the planning area. One goes along Applegate Road Winton Way, extending from a line south of the City to a substation northeast of Cressey. Another line runs south of the City near Rose and Mulberry Avenues. Two lines run between Bellevue Road and Santa Fe Avenue before converging at a substation at the intersection of Shaffer Road and Santa Fe Avenue.

At the CAADC site, electrical service, including maintenance, is provided by the Merced Irrigation District (MID). Electricity from MID is generated by the McSwain and New Exchequer Dams in Mariposa County.

MID has prepared an Electric Utility Development Plan to extend electrical service to Livingston, Atwater, and Merced. The plan calls for the expansion of the Pioneer Substation to provide service to other Livingston customers and to serve as a base for a 115 kilovolt line extension to Atwater and Merced. Line extensions are proposed to eastern and western Atwater and Castle Airport, among other places. Proposed substations in Atwater and Castle will be built as required. Highway 99 corridor contains a major natural gas main and crude oil pipelines. The gas main pipeline has an offshoot line running directly north through town, beginning approximately at the intersection of Atwater Boulevard and First Street. A "product pipeline" ran diagonally across the southwestern City limits to the intersection of Buhach Road and Highway 99, where two fuel storage tanks held jet fuel for use at Castle Air Force Base. The line subsequently ran north to the base.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides primary electrical and natural gas services to residences and businesses throughout the City of Atwater. PG&E’s service area is over 70,000 square miles, located throughout northern and central California. PG&E maintains approximately 42,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines, 6,700 miles of gas transmission pipelines, and provides approximately 970 billion cubic feet of natural gas to its customers per year.

PG&E generates electric power from many sources, including renewable, coal, hydroelectric powerhouses, natural gas, and nuclear energy sources. The electricity power mix for PG&E in 2021 is shown in the second column of Table 5.5-1. In 2021, approximately 91 percent of the electricity PG&E delivered to its customers came from greenhouse gas-free energy sources, which includes eligible renewable, large hydroelectric, and nuclear energy sources. The third column of Table 5.5-1 shows the electricity power mix for the State of California as a whole. Approximately 52.1 percent of the electricity power mix for the State of California as a whole in 2021 was represented by eligible renewable energy sources and/or energy sources that do not directly generate greenhouse gases. As shown, PG&E generates a larger proportion of eligible renewable and greenhouse gas-free energy sources than the State of California as a whole.

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 5-24 TABLE 5.5-1: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC – 2021 POWER CONTENT LABEL Energy Sources PG&E Power Mix Total California Power Mix** Eligible Renewable 47.7% 33.6%
Biomass & biowaste 4.2% 2.3%
Geothermal 5.2% 4.8%
Eligible hydroelectric 1.8% 1.0%
Solar 25.7% 14.2%
Wind 10.9% 11.4%
Coal 0.0% 3.0%
Large Hydroelectric 4.0% 9.2%
Natural Gas 8.9% 37.9%
Nuclear 39.3% 9.3%
Other 0.0% 0.2%
Unspecified Power* 0.0% 6.8%
TOTAL 100% 100%
SOURCE: HTTPS://WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV/FILEBROWSER/DOWNLOAD/3882* "UNSPECIFIED SOURCES OF POWER" UNSPECIFIED POWER IS ELECTRICITY THAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH OPEN MARKET TRANSACTIONS AND IS NOT TRACEABLE TO A SPECIFIC GENERATION SOURCE. ** PERCENTAGES ARE ESTIMATED ANNUALLY BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION BASED ON THE ELECTRICITY SOLD TO CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS DURING THE IDENTIFIED YEAR.

Infrastructure to deliver electricity and natural gas throughout the City of Atwater is currently in place.

PG&E can generally can provide these services to new development on request.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Local phone and internet services are provided through a range of carriers that can accommodate future demand for their services in the Atwater planning area.

City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-0

Chapter 6
Hazards & Safety
This Chapter includes the following topics:

6.1 Flooding Hazards

6.2 Wildfire Hazards

6.3 Hazardous Materials

6.4 Aircraft Hazards

6.5 Emergency Preparedness
The Hazards & Safety chapter addresses Issues and topics related to hazards, safety and emergency preparedness within the city.

Some of these hazards may be the result of natural hazards, which are exacerbated by human activity, such as development in areas prone to flooding or wildfire. Additional hazards are entirely human-made, including airport crash hazards, and exposure to hazardous materials.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-1 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
Issues and topics related to hazards and safety within the city and planning area are addressed in this chapter. Some of these hazards may be the result of natural hazards, or hazards are which are exacerbated by human activity, such as development in areas prone to flooding. Additional hazards are entirely humanmade, including airport hazards and exposure to hazardous materials. This chapter includes the following sections:

6.1 Flooding Hazards

6.2 Wildfire Hazards

6.3 Hazardous Materials

6.4 Aircraft Hazards

6.5 Emergency Preparedness
Information related to geological, soils and seismicity hazards, climate change, and air quality is included within the Conservation and Natural Resource Chapter (Chapter 8.0) of this Existing Conditions Report.

Information related to water quality is included within Chapter 5.0 (Utilities), and information related to traffic hazards and crash statistics is included in Chapter 2.0 (Circulation).

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-2

FINDINGS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities for Regional Collaboration. Collaborate with neighboring communities and Merced County agencies to address shared safety concerns within Atwater and regionally.

Natural Disaster Response. Atwater is susceptible to flooding from natural events and dam failure.

Ensuring preparedness and disaster response plans are in place is crucial to protecting life and property within Atwater.

Flood. The Easternmost portions of Atwater are vulnerable to flooding from 100 year flood events.

The City has adopted regulations required by FEMA for participation in the National Flood Program (NFIP) and currently participates in the NFIP program.

Dam Inundation. Many areas of Atwater are vulnerable to flooding from inundation in the event of a dam failure associated with the Castle Dam, New Exchequer Dam, and the Lake Yosemite Dam.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-3 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

6.1 FLOODING HAZARDS
This section addresses the hazards associated with flooding in the planning area. Additional discussions of storm drainage are located in Chapter 5.0 (Utilities) of this Existing Conditions Report.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Merced County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) provides guidance on hazard mitigation planning to protect the people and property of the County from the effects of hazard events.

This plan was also developed to make Merced County and the participating jurisdictions eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Building resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, as well as to make the County and jurisdictions more disaster resistant.

City of Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 16.14, Flood Plain Management The purpose of Chapter 16.14, Flood Plain Management of the City’s Municipal Code is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:
a) Protect human life and health;
b) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; c) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
d) Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
e) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; f) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage; g) Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and h) Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-4

EXISTING SETTING
FEMA Flood Zones
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping provides important guidance for cities and counties planning for flooding events and regulating development within identified flood hazard areas.

FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is intended to encourage State and local governments to adopt responsible floodplain management programs and flood measures. Floodplain zones are determined by FEMA and used to create Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) designating these areas. These tools assist cities in mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning and building permit requirements. To address the need for insurance to cover flooding issues, FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Administration (NFIA) program. The NFIA program provides federal flood insurance and federally financed loans for property owners in flood prone areas.

Figure 5.1-1 shows FEMA flood designation for the planning area. Most of the city and the planning area lies outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, several areas in the eastern portion of the planning area do fall within the 100- year and 500-year floodplain. The City has adopted regulations required by FEMA for participation in the National Flood Program (NFIP) and currently participates in the NFIP program.

Longview Ave
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave
W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Grove Ave
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
Livingston Canal
Bear Creek
Canal Creek
Figure 6.1-1. FEMA Flood Designations
Sources: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, Merced County, NFHL_06047C; USGS National Hydrogaphy Dataset; Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Hydrography
Stream/River
Canal/Ditch
FEMA Designation
100-year Flood Zone
500-year Flood Zone
Area of Minimal Flood
Hazard
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-6 SB 5 (200-year Flood Protection)
Both State policy and recently enacted State legislation (Senate Bill 5) call for 200-year (0.5% annual chance) flood protection to be the minimum level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas in the Central Valley.

Senate Bill 5 (SB5) requires that the 200-year protection be consistent with criteria used or developed by the Department of Water Resources. SB 5 requires all urban and urbanizing areas in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys to achieve 200-year Urban Level of flood protection (or a finding of adequate progress toward 200-year flood protection) in order to approve development. According to the USACE Comprehensive Study, there are no areas within the planning area that are delineated within a 200-year floodplain.

Dam Inundation
Earthquakes centered close to a dam are typically the most likely cause of dam failure. Dam Inundation maps have been required in California since 1972, following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake and near failure of the Lower Van Norman Dam. A major dam failure event has not occurred in the Atwater planning area or within Merced County. A catastrophic failure of various dams in the region would have a significant impact on Merced County and the City of Atwater.

Protection from flood hazards created by dam failures is critical to the safety and wellbeing of Atwater residents. Dam failures can result from a number of natural or manmade causes, such as earthquakes, erosion, improper siting, improper maintenance, rapidly rising flood waters and structural/design flaws.

The ability to provide warning for potential victims of flooding from dam failure is influenced by the type of dam constructed, the frequency of inspections for structural integrity, the flood wave arrival time, the ability to notify persons downstream and their ability to evacuate. Aside from loss of life, damage to property and displacement of people, hydroelectric facilities on dams that fail would suffer damage. This could have an impact on life support systems in communities outside the immediate hazard inundation areas.

Figure 6.1-2 depicts potential dam failure inundation areas within the planning area. Failure of the Lake Yosemite dam, northeast of Merced, would inundate eastern portions of the city. Failure of the Castle Dam would inundate areas in the eastern and central portions of the city, while failure of Castle Dam would inundate the western portions of the city and planning area.

Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code requires local jurisdictions to adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation of populated inundation areas identified by dam owners. The County MultiHazard Mitigation Plan includes emergency procedures related to dam failure.

Longview Ave
N Winton Way
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave
W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Grove Ave
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
Figure 6.1-2. Dam Inundation Areas
Sources: DWR Dam Breach Inundation Map Web publisher, 8/2/2023; Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Inundation Areas
Castle Dam
New Exchequer Dam
Lake Yosemite Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-8

6.2 WILDFIRE HAZARDS
This section addresses the hazards associated with wildfires in the planning area. The discussion of fire suppression resources is located in the Section 4.0 (Community Services, Recreation, and Facilities) of this report.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes local regulations that guide land use decisions. Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

City of Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 15.28, California Fire Code Chapter 15.28, adopts and establishes the California Fire Code as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Building Standards Code Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

EXISTING SETTING
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The state has charged CalFire with the identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas. In addition, CalFire must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) identified within any Local Responsibility Areas. The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building code standards.

Figure 6.2-1 shows Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Areas Countywide.

As shown on the figure, Merced County contains areas with “moderate” “High” and “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Generally, the valley areas have no FHSZs mapped, or areas mapped as moderate.

Local Responsibility Areas
The Atwater planning area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). CalFire has determined that the City of Atwater does not contain Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) within Local Responsibility Areas. Figure 6.2-2 shows Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the city and planning area of Atwater. As shown on the figure, there are limited areas of designated as moderate fire hazard severity zones within the planning area, along State Route 99 at the center of the planning area and the corner of West Belcher Avenue and Trindade Road along the eastern boundary.

State Responsibility Areas
There are no State Responsibility Areas within the Atwater Planning Area. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the County generally are located on the western and eastern boundaries of Merced County. FHSZ within the SRAs range from “Moderate” to “Very High.”
Federal Responsibility Areas
There are no Federal Responsibility Areas within the Atwater Planning Area. The majority of Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) are located on the western side of Merced County, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and the eastern portions of the Merced-Castle Airport.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-9 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Fire Threat to the City of Atwater
Wildland fires are a common hazard in California. The combination of dry summers, widespread vegetation, and the proximity of urban development to vegetated areas has led to many devastating fires. In Merced County, grass and brush lands are the most likely places for wildland fires. Since Atwater lies outside these areas, the risk of wildland fire is low. Because the surrounding areas are cultivated agricultural lands and orchards, the risk of wildland fire that threatens much of California is very low. The major fire threat within the city is urban fires associated with residences and businesses.

S A N B E N I T O

M E R C E D

M A D E R A

S A N J O A Q U I N

S A N T A C L A R A

S T A N I S L A U S M A R I P O S A

F R E S N O
UV152
UV59
UV233
UV145
UV108
UV99
UV152
UV99
UV99
UV132
UV UV25
156
UV33
UV49
UV180
UV140
UV132
UV140
UV140
UV165
UV33
UV33
£¤101
§¨¦580
§¨¦5
Figure 6.2-1. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Countywide Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM); USGS Roads Database. 0 2½ 5
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)
Local Responsibility Area
High
Moderate
Urban Unzoned
Non-Wildland/Non-Urban
State Responsibility Area
Very High
High
Moderate
Federal Responsibility Area
High
Moderate
Non-Wildland/Non-Urban

Longview Ave
N Winton Way
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave
W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
WINTON
CASTLE

AIRPORT
Figure 6.2-2. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) City of Atwater Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023
Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM); USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Airport Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)
in Local Responsibility Areas
Very High*
High*
Moderate
Urban Unzoned
Non-Wildland/Non-Urban
* none within the mapped extent

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-12

6.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of. Hazardous materials are mainly present because of industries involving chemical byproducts from manufacturing, petrochemicals, and hazardous building materials.

Hazardous waste is the subset of hazardous materials that has been abandoned, discarded, or recycled and is not properly contained, including contaminated soil or groundwater with concentrations of chemicals, infectious agents, or toxic elements sufficiently high to increase human mortality or to destroy the ecological environment. If a hazardous material is spilled and cannot be effectively picked up and used as a product, it is considered to be hazardous waste. If a hazardous material site is unused, and it is obvious there is no realistic intent to use the material, it is also considered to be a hazardous waste. Examples of hazardous materials include flammable and combustible materials, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, poisons, materials that react violently with water, radioactive materials, and chemicals.

EXISTING SETTING
Envirostar Data Management System
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. This site cleanup information includes: Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Corrective Action Sites, Tiered Permit Sites, and Evaluation / Investigation Sites. The hazardous waste facilities include: Permitted– Operating, Post-Closure Permitted, and Historical Non-Operating.

There are 17 locations listed within a 3 mile radius of Atwater. Ten (10) of these sites are listed within the City of Atwater.

Of the 17 sites within the vicinity of Atwater, one (1) site is listed as Certified / Land use Restriction only, one (1) site is listed as Certified / Operation & Maintenance - Land use Restriction, one (1) site is listed as active, one (1) site is listed as closed, three (3) sites are listed as inactive, and six (6) are listed with no further action required. Table 6.3-1 lists the Envirostor sites within the City of Atwater and nearby areas.

TABLE 6.3-1: ATWATER SITE CLEANUP AND HAZARDOUS FACILITIES LIST (ENVIROSTOR)

NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE LISTED CITY /AREA
Castle AFB/County of
Merced Parcels
Certified - Land Use
Restrictions Only
Federal Superfund Atwater
Castle Air Force Base Certified / Operation
& Maintenance
Federal Superfund Atwater

AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY

AGENCY/CASTLE
CLOSED Non-Operating Atwater
ATWATER IRON & METAL Inactive - Needs
Evaluation
Corrective Action Atwater
Valley New School Inactive - Needs
Evaluation
School Investigation Atwater

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-13 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE LISTED CITY /AREA
Peggy Heller School
Expansion
Inactive - Withdrawn School Investigation Atwater
Proposed Atwater
Elementary School
Inactive - Withdrawn School Investigation Merced
Proposed Atwater
Elementary School
Inactive - Withdrawn School Investigation Atwater

ATWATER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
No Action Required School Investigation Atwater
J.R. SIMPLOT CO - WINTON No Action Required Corrective Action Winton

BUHACH HIGH SCHOOL

ADDITION
No Further Action School Investigation Atwater
Juniper and Bridgewater
Proposed Elementary
School
No Further Action School Investigation Atwater
K-5 SCHOOL SITE No Further Action School Investigation Winton Merced Army Airfield
(J09CA0869)
No Further Action Military Evaluation Merced
Valley Community School in
Atwater
No Further Action School Investigation Atwater
J.R. SIMPLOT CO - WINTON PROTECTIVE FILER Non-Operating Winton

AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY

AGENCY DIV
Refer: SMBRP Corrective Action Merced
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ENVIROSTOR DATABASE, 2023.

Cortese List
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.

There no locations listed within Atwater are included on the Cortese list.

GeoTracker
GeoTracker is the California Water Resource Control Board’s data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Defense, Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating USTs and land disposal sites.

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (LUST)
There are 23 locations identified with a City of Atwater address that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST). Twenty-one (21) of these locations have undergone LUST cleanup and the State has closed the cases. Two (2) sites remain open cases with one (1) being eligible for

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-14 closure, and the other being an open site assessment. Table 6.3-2 lists the location of open and closed cases for LUSTs in Atwater.

TABLE 6.3-2: ATWATER LUST CLEANUP SITES

NAME ACTIVITY ADDRESS

CLOSED CASES (CLEANUP COMPLETED)
7-11 #14120 (FORMER) COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2679 BUHACH RD 7-11 #19541 COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1605 BELLEVUE RD E
APPLEGATE EXXON MINIMART COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1619 SYCAMORE AVENUE APPLEGATE MINIMART COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1619 SYCAMORE APPLEGATE#9-0715 COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1500 SYCAMORE
ATWATER SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1601 GROVE STREET BEACON #517 COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 100 BELLEVUE RD E
CIRCLE K STORE NO. 5018 COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1021 SHAFFER ROAD FERRERIA'S UNOCAL SERVICE COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1401 ATWATER BLVD FORMER TEXACO SERVICE STATION COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2698 FIRST STREET GAS-N-SAVE MART COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1370 ATWATER BLVD.

J R WOOD INC COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 8114 OLIVE AVE W
MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1850 JUNIPER AVE ROYAL CROWN MINI MART COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2689 BUHACH RD N SANTECO STATION COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 5150 BROADWAY AVE. E.

SHELL (ATWATER) COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 1198 WINTON WAY SILVEIRA PETROLEUM INC COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2249 ATWATER BLVD SILVEIRA PETROLEUM, INC. COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2249 ATWATER BOULEVARD SILVIERA PETROLEUM, INC. COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 2145 ATWATER BLVD SURE STOP MARKET COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 972 BROADWAY
ULTRAMAR BEACON #517 (2ND LEAK) COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED 100 BELLEVUE E

OPEN CASES
SAVE CENTER NO. 1 OPEN - ELIGIBLE FOR CLOSURE 715 ATWATER BLVD.

SAVE CENTER NO. 2 OPEN - SITE ASSESSMENT 1039 ATWATER BLVD.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2023.

PERMITTED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST)
There are 17 locations with a listed Atwater address that have permitted Underground Storage Tanks (UST) that are permitted through the California Water Resources Control Board. Table 6.3-3 lists the location of the permitted USTs listed with an Atwater address.

TABLE 6.3-3: ATWATER PERMITTED UST SITES

NAME ADDRESS CITY/AREA
7-ELEVEN INC. #37970 100 E BELLEVUE RD Atwater
APPLEGATE CHEVRON FOOD MART 1500 SYCAMORE AVE. Atwater
APPLEGATE STOP N SHOP 1619 SYCAMORE AVE Atwater
ARCO AM/PM 1615 BELL DR. Atwater
ATWATER CIRCLE-K 1619 SYCAMORE AVE Atwater
ATWATER MINI MART 1198 WINTON WAY Atwater
BROTHERS ROYAL CROWN 2689 N BUHACH ROAD Atwater
BUHACH AMPM #83843 1901 BUHACH RD Atwater

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-15 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

NAME ADDRESS CITY/AREA
C&F MART 1401 ATWATER BLVD Atwater
CA HIGHWAY PATROL MERCED 1500 BELL DRIVE Atwater
CIRCLE K STORE #2705018 1021 SHAFFER RD Atwater
FAST N ESY #12 2775 WINTON WAY Atwater
HUNT & SONS INC. ATWATER 2249 ATWATER BLVD Atwater
MAXI-MART FOOD & LIQUOR 1911 ATWATER BLVD Atwater
NEW OLIVE MARKET 1101 WINTON WAY Atwater
SURE STOP MARKET 972 BROADWAY AVE Atwater
XTREME POWER GAS FOOD AND LIQUOR LLC 1385 WINTON WAY Atwater SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2023.

Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)

FACILITY/SITE LISTING
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The SWIS database contains information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites. For each facility, the database contains information about location, owner, operator, facility type, regulatory and operational status, authorized waste types, local enforcement agency and inspection and enforcement records.

There are no solid waste facilities listed in the database within the City of Atwater. There are two facilities near Atwater, including the Merced County Regional Waste Landfill, located approximately 7.2 miles northwest of Atwater, and the Billy Wright Landfill, located approximately 20 miles southwest of Atwater.

SWIS facility/site search details for all sites within Merced County are listed in Table 6.3-4 below.

TABLE 6.3-4: SWIS FACILITY/SITE – MERCED COUNTY

SWIS NUMBER SITE NAME

SITE REGULATORY
STATUS

SITE OPERATIONAL
STATUS
24-AA-0001 Highway 59 Landfill Permitted Active
24-AA-0002 Billy Wright Disposal Site Permitted Active
24-AA-0007 City of Los Banos Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-AA-0008 Calaveras Materials Inc.Western Stone DS Pre-regulation Closed 24-AA-0009 Bert Crane Landfill Pre-regulation Closed
24-AA-0010 Merced City Municipal Dump Pre-regulation Closed 24-AA-0011 El Nido Composting Facility-Synagro West Permitted Active 24-AA-0017 Foster Farms Manure Storage Facility Notification Active 24-AA-0019 Stone Family El Nido Composting Facility Notification Active 24-AA-0020 Highway 59 Compost Facility Notification Active 24-AA-0029 Billy Wright Composting Facility Notification Active 24-AA-0031 Nakashima Farms Composting #1 Notification Active 24-AA-0033 Greenway Notification Active
24-AA-0038 Green Forrest Recycling and Chipping Notification Active

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-16

SWIS NUMBER SITE NAME

SITE REGULATORY
STATUS

SITE OPERATIONAL
STATUS
24-AA-0039 D.A.T.T. Notification Active
24-AA-0042 Agromin-Bowles Green Material Composting Notification Active 24-AA-0043 City of Merced Transfer Site Permitted Active 24-AA-0044 Stone Family Paul`s 25 Compost Facility Excluded Active 24-AA-0045 Seth Rossow Notification Closed
24-AA-0046 Foster Farms Manure Storage Facility Notification Active 24-AA-0047 Merced County Public Works C&G Notification Active 24-CR-0001 Shaffer Road LF #1 Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0002 Shaffer Road LF #2 Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0003 Shaffer Road LF #3 Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0004 Snelling Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0005 Stevinson Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0006 East Avenue Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0007 El Nido Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0008 Gustine City Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0009 Gustine Ingomar Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0010 Hilmar Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0011 Le Grand Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0012 Livingston City Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0013 Los Banos County Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed 24-CR-0014 Planada Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0018 Castle AFB LF #2 Pre-regulation Clean Closed 24-CR-0020 Castle AFB LF #4 Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0021 Castle AFB LF #5 Pre-regulation Closed
24-CR-0022 Castle Vista Landfill A Pre-regulation Clean Closed 24-CR-0023 Castle Vista Landfill B Pre-regulation Clean Closed 24-CR-0026 Hartley Slough DS Unpermitted Closed
24-CR-0027 Dos Palos Disposal Site Pre-regulation Closed SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY, 2023.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-17 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

6.4 AIRCRAFT HAZARDS
The State Division of Aeronautics has compiled extensive data regarding aircraft accidents around airports in California. According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2002), prepared by the State Division of Aeronautics, 18.2% of general aviation accidents occur during takeoff and initial climb, and

44.2% of general aviation accidents occur during approach and landing. The State Division of Aeronautics has plotted accidents during these phases at airports across the country and has determined certain theoretical areas of high accident probability.

Approach and Landing Accidents
As nearly half of all general aviation accidents occur in the approach and landing phases of flight, considerable work has been done to determine the approximate probability of such accidents. Nearly 77% of accidents during this phase of flight occur during touchdown onto the runway or during the roll-out.

These accidents typically consist of hard or long landings, ground loops (where the aircraft spins out on the ground), departures from the runway surface, etc. These types of accidents are rarely fatal and often do not involve other aircraft or structures. Commonly these accidents occur due to loss of control on the part of the pilot and, to some extent, weather conditions. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002).

The remaining 23% of accidents during the approach and landing phase of flight occur as the aircraft is maneuvered towards the runway for landing, in a portion of the airspace around the airport commonly called the traffic pattern. Common causes of approach accidents include the pilot’s misjudging of the rate of descent, poor visibility, unexpected downdrafts, or tall objects beneath the final approach course.

Improper use of rudder on an aircraft during the last turn toward the runway can sometimes result in a stall (a cross-control stall) and resultant spin, causing the aircraft to strike the ground directly below the aircraft. The types of events that lead to approach accidents tend to place the accident site fairly close to the extended runway centerline. The probability of accidents increases as the flight path nears the approach end of the runway. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002).

According to aircraft accident plotting provided by the State Division of Aeronautics, most accidents that occur during the approach and landing phase of flight occur on the airport surface itself. The remainder of accidents that occur during this phase of flight are generally clustered along the extended centerline of the runway, where the aircraft is flying closest to the ground and with the lowest airspeed. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002).

Takeoff and Departure Accidents
According to data collected by the State Division of Aeronautics, nearly 65% of all accidents during the takeoff and departure phase of flight occur during the initial climb phase, immediately after takeoff. This data is correlated by two physical constraints of general aviation aircraft:
• The takeoff and initial climb phase are times when the aircraft engine(s) is under maximum stress and is thus more susceptible to mechanical problems than at other phases of flight; and • Average general aviation runways are not typically long enough to allow an aircraft that experiences a loss of power shortly after takeoff to land again and stop before the end of the runway.

While the majority of approach and landing accidents occur on or near to the centerline of the runway, accidents that occur during initial climb are more dispersed in their location as pilots are not attempting to get to any one specific point (such as a runway). Additionally, aircraft vary widely in payload, engine power,

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-18 glide ratio, and several other factors that affect glide distance, handling characteristics after engine loss, and general response to engine failure. This further disperses the accident pattern. However, while the pattern is more dispersed than that seen for approach and landing accidents, the departure pattern is still generally localized in the direction of departure and within proximity of the centerline. This is partially due to the fact that pilots are trained to fly straight ahead and avoid turns when experiencing a loss of power or engine failure. Turning flight causes the aircraft to sink faster and flying straight allows for more time to attempt to fix the problem. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2002.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework discussion describes laws and regulations that guide land use decisions. Adopted plans that pertain to the City are also described.

Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) Airport Land Use Commission Law (Public Utilities Code §21670 et seq.) passed in 1967, authorized the creation of Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in California. Per the Public Utilities Code, the purpose of an ALUC is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimizes exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (§21670). Furthermore, each ALUC must prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Each ALUCP, which must be based on a twenty-year planning horizon, should focus on broadly defined noise and safety impacts.

On June 21, 2012, the Merced County ALUC adopted the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Plan included the individual compatibility plan for each of the five public-use airports in Merced County: Castle Airport, Gustine Municipal Airport, Los Banos Municipal Airport, Merced Regional Airport, and Turlock Municipal Airport. As adopted by the Merced County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the basic function of the compatibility plan is to promote compatibility between each airport and the land uses which surround them to the extent that these areas have not already been devoted to incompatible uses.

The plan accomplishes this function through establishment of a set of compatibility criteria applicable to new development around the airport. The compatibility plan serves as a tool for use by the ALUC in fulfilling its duty to review airport and adjacent land use development proposals. Neither this compatibility plan nor the ALUC have authority over existing land uses or over operation of the airport. Except for Castle Airport and Merced Regional Airport, the influence area for each of the airports, as defined herein, extends roughly 2 miles from the airport runways. For Castle Airport and Merced Regional Airport, the influence area stretches approximately 4 miles from the runway ends in recognition of the airports’ runway lengths, instrument approach procedures, and heavy aircraft which the airports are capable of accommodating.

Airport Safety Map and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Safety, contained within the Airport Master Plan, regulate land uses and structure heights that may constitute a hazard to air navigation. Any proposed object or structure that would penetrate any of these imaginary surfaces as they apply to the Castle Airport is considered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be an obstruction to air navigation.

EXISTING SETTING
Local Airport Facilities
The Merced-Castle Airport is located directly adjacent to the City of Atwater in the northeast, outside the Atwater Planning Area. The airport is owned by the County of Merced and operated by the County’s

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-19 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Department of Commerce, Aviation and Economic Development. Prior to October 1995, Castle Airport operated for more than 50 years as a military airfield and was known for most of that period as Castle Air Force Base. Castle Airport has a single 11,802-foot long runway aligned with the prevailing wind direction in a northwest/southeast alignment.

Operations at Merced-Castle Castle Airport could pose a potential hazard to future development within the Planning Area. Prior to October 1995, Castle Airport operated as Castle Air Force Base. Its primary mission was to serve as a base for long-range bombers, but it was also a site for training of bomber and air refueling crews. The potential hazards associated with military aircraft operations were obvious, particularly since the long-range bombers carried nuclear weapons. However, for most of its years of operation, the approach and departure zones from Castle Air Force Base were over agricultural land. Thus, the most significant safety hazard was a possible accident involving an aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. During the years of the base's operation, there were no accidents that threatened the safety of people or property within the city.

Airfield Configuration: Castle Airport has a single 11,802-foot long runway (Runway 13-31) aligned in a northwest/southeast direction. Runway 31 is equipped with straight-in precision instrument approach capabilities and Runway 13 has a GPS nonprecision approach procedure. The principal change proposed for the airfield is to reestablish a precision instrument approach to Runway 13, upgrading the approach reference code (ARC) to D-VI and widen the runway by 50 feet to accommodate a larger class of aircraft.

Airport Activity: The Compatibility Plan for Castle Airport anticipates that the airport activity level will reach approximately 265,207 annual operations by 2035 or beyond. The majority of this activity is assumed to be generated by general aviation aircraft (94%). The forecast also assumes that air cargo and airline activity will initiate in the near term and will comprise approximately 4% of the 2035 forecast.

Airport Influence Area: The airport influence area boundary is defined by the outer edge of the FAR Part 77, Subpart B, height notification surface and portions of the precision instrument approach surface south of the airport. The boundary west of the airport is truncated to reflect few overflights of the City of Atwater.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-20 The Castle Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones Map is shown on Figures 6.4.1. As shown on Figure 6.4-1, portions of the Atwater Planning Area are included within Zones B1, B2, and D. For all restricted zones, and land use compatibility standards see Appendix C: 1 The majority of the lands located within airport contours are included within Zone D (Overflight Areas).

Zone D includes the following Restrictions:

Incompatible - Use should not be permitted under any circumstances:
• Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill, incineration • Hazardous Materials Production: oil refineries, chemical plants • Any use creating visual or electronic hazards to flight Conditional - Use is compatible if indicated usage intensity, lot coverage, and other listed conditions are met. For the purposes of these criteria, “avoid” is intended as cautionary guidance, not a prohibition of the use:
• Any use having structures or trees more than 100 feet in height • Any use having the potential to cause an increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife • Water: flood plains, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs
• Agriculture (except residences and livestock): crops, orchards, vineyards, pasture, range land • Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities (capacity ≥1,000 people): spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, zoos
• Heavy Industrial
• Power Plants
• Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle Centers

1 https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/aluc/Maps_and_Tables/castle_basic_map_and_compatibility_table.pdf

59 140
59 99
WINTON
Bellevue Rd
E Juniper Ave
N Winton Way
Shaffer Rd
Central Ave
Fruitland Ave Central Ave
Bell Dr
Co Rd J18
Liberty Ave Steinberg Rd Longview Ave
Atwater Jordan Rd Hull Rd
Applegate Rd
Arena Way
White Crane Rd
Sunset Dr
Figure 6.4-1. Castle Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones Sources: Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Castle Airport
Runway
Zone A - Runway Protection Zone
Zone B1 - Inner Approach/Departure Area
Zone B2 - Inner Turning Zone
Zone C - Extended Approach/Departure Area
Zone D - Other Overflight Areas Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater February 22, 2024

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-22 Other Local airport facilities near Atwater
• 9.5 miles: Turlock, CA (015) Turlock Municipal Airport • 22 miles: Gustine, CA (301) Gustine Municipal Airport • 25 miles: Los Banos, CA (LSN) Los Banos Municipal Airport • 26 Miles: Chowchilla, CA (206) Chowchilla Municipal Airport • 30 miles: Oakdale, CA (027) Oakdale Airport
Major Regional Airport Facilities
Stockton Metropolitan Airport: The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is a full-service airport which provides commercial airline passenger service, rental car, parking, and transportation services, as well as aviationrelated services and aircraft hangar facilities.

Modesto City-County Airport: The Modesto City-County Airport (MOD) serves the central California city Modesto and is also a gateway to the California Sierras, particularly Sequoia National Forest and Kings Canyon National Park. MOD Airport is located at 617 Airport Way (cross-streets Mitchell Road & Tenaya Drive), in the City of Modesto, California, and accessible via State Hwy 99 and Interstate Hwy 5. MOD is currently not served by any commercial airline. MOD is served by an airport traffic control tower and two runways: 10L/28R: 5,904 x 150 ft asphalt; and 10R/28L: 3,464 x 100 ft (1,056 x 30 m) asphalt, the runway is not available when the tower is closed.

Merced Regional Airport: In addition to local and regional air commutes, the Merced Yosemite Regional Airport (MCE) operates facilities for general aviation aircraft, Gateway Air Center for private aircraft, offices for government agencies, and corporate hangars. The Merced Regional Airport covers 766 acres at an elevation of 155 feet and has one runway: 12/30: 5,914 by 150 feet asphalt.

Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT): Fresno Yosemite International Airport is a joint military–public airport in Fresno (approximately 63-mile southeast of Atwater). It is the primary commercial airport for the San Joaquin Valley and three national parks: Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon. It offers scheduled passenger flights to several major airline hubs in the United States and international service to Mexico. The airport is owned and operated by the city of Fresno and operates two runways on a property spanning 1,728 acres.

National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database The National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database identifies 8 aircraft within the vicinity of Atwater associated within the Merced-Castle Airport since January 1, 1999. (National Transportation Safety Board, 2023). Table 6.4-1 below details each identified aircraft incidents listed by the database within Atwater.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
6-23 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 6.4-1: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD AVIATION ACCIDENTS WITHIN MERCED COUNTY

EVENT DATE AIRPORT MAKE/MODEL EVENT SEVERITY
09/05/2017 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Cobalt Co50 Valkyrie Nonfatal 01/26/2013 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Cessna 152 Nonfatal 11/15/2008 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Cessna 152 Fatal 11/17/2007 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Cessna 172N Minor 06/01/2007 McCready-Merced Airport
(KMCE) Dutton Air Camper Nonfatal
01/13/2001 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Piper PA-22-150 Nonfatal 03/23/1999 Merced-Castle Airport (MER) Beech 58 Nonfatal SOURCE:NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD ACCIDENT DATABASE 2019 .

6.5 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The Merced Office of Emergency Services (OES) provides preparedness before, and coordination direction during, large-scale emergencies and disasters. OES coordinates with partner agencies including the six incorporated cities within the county, special districts, and key private agencies in providing planning, response, recovery, and mitigation activities as a result of disaster related incidents.

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Merced County including the participating jurisdictions of the have prepared this multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan (MJHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the County from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed to make Merced County and the participating jurisdictions eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Building resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, as well as to make the County and jurisdictions more disaster resistant. This plan demonstrates the County’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 6-24 MJHMP Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
For the purposes of this MJHMP plan, a critical facility is defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. FEMA sorts critical facilities into seven lifeline categories as shown in Figure 4.0-1 in the Base Plan.

Within the City of Atwater, the following are considered critical facilities:
• Atwater Fire Department Stations (Stations #41 & 42)
• Atwater Police Department building
• Atwater City Hall (co-located with Police Department) • Merced County Fire Department Stations 82 (Atwater) and 88 (Winton) • Water supply lines and wells
• Wastewater treatment plant, pumping stations, and trunk lines • Major electrical transmission lines and substations
• Major communication lines and microwave transmission facilities • Federal Prison and major railways
• Castle Airport Aviation and Development Center (CAADC) o Academy
o Airport
o Aviation
o EOC
o Fire
o Fuel
o Sheriff
o Water Facilities/Utilities/Sewer/Communications/Lightning • Castle Air Museum
• Veteran’s Memorial, Veterans Services
• Animal shelter
• Public Library
• Atwater CLEO
• Laboratories (Bess Test Labs, Castle Analytical Lab)
• Critical facilities also include major roadways which may serve as principal evacuation routes. • There several designated shelters in Atwater for use in an emergency event including the Veterans Memorial Building, recreation centers/parks, high school gyms and school cafeterias.

City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7-0

Chapter 7
Community Noise
This Chapter includes the following topics:

7.0 Community Noise
The Community Noise chapter provides background information relating to noise in and around the City of Atwater. The characteristics of sound and noise are described, and
transportation, stationary, and other noise sources within the Planning Area are defined. Additionally, the existing ambient noise environment within the Planning Area is quantified through noise level measurements and through application of accepted noise prediction methodologies.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐1  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
This chapter provides background information relating to noise in and around the planning area. The characteristics of sound and noise are described, and transportation, stationary, and construction noise sources within the planning area are defined. Additionally, the existing ambient noise environment within the planning area is quantified through continuous and short‐term noise level measurements and through application of accepted noise prediction methodologies.

FINDINGS: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following summarizes some important topics relating to community noise within the City of Atwater:

Existing traffic noise levels at nearby receptors within the planning area range from 65.3db along Atwater Blvd from Golden State Hwy to Maple St, to 38.3db along Commerce Ave from Commerce Ave to Industry Way.

Aviation noise contours associated with the Castle‐Merced County Airport fall outside the City Limits of Atwater, but are located within the City’s Sphere of Influence.

Fixed noise sources in the City typically include parking lots, loading docks, parks, schools, and other commercial/retail use noise sources (HVAC, exhaust fans, etc.).

The results of the community noise survey indicate that existing transportation noise sources were the major contributor of noise observed during daytime hours, especially during vehicle passbys and R&R operations.

Railroad noise measurement resultsshow noise volumes of up to 107 dBA at a 60 foot centerline distance.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐2 KEY TERMS
ACOUSTICS The science of sound.

AMBIENT NOISE The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ATTENUATION The reduction of noise.

A‐WEIGHTING A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 p.m. ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

DECIBEL OR DB Fundamental unit of sound, defined as ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared.

FREQUENCY The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.

IMPULSIVE Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

LDN Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

LEQ Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

LMAX The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(N) The sound level exceeded as a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one‐hour period.

LOUDNESS A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NOISE Unwanted sound.

SEL A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event

FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.

Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million‐fold increase in

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐3  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels(dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A‐weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A‐ weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A‐ weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A‐weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A‐weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all‐ encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady‐state A‐weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24‐hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24‐hour average, it tends to disguise short‐term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +3 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 7.0‐1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐4 TABLE 7.0‐1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL (DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES ‐‐110‐‐  Rock Band
Jet Fly‐over at 300 m (1,000 ft)  ‐‐100‐‐
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) ‐‐90‐‐
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) ‐‐80‐‐  Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) ‐‐70‐‐  Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) ‐‐60‐‐  Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime  ‐‐50‐‐  Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime  ‐‐40‐‐  Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime  ‐‐30‐‐  Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime  ‐‐20‐‐  Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
‐‐10‐‐  Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing  ‐‐0‐‐  Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. NOVEMBER 2009.

EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction;  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and  Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so‐called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A‐weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived;  Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just‐perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐5  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater  A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

LOCAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Existing City Noise Thresholds
The City of Atwater General Plan Noise Element establishes goals and policies, as well as criteria for evaluating the compatibility of individual land uses with respect to noise exposure.

City of Atwater Noise Element:

GOAL NO‐1. Protect residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise.

Policy NO‐1.1. Monitor and update data regarding the community’s ambient and fixed noise levels.

Policy NO‐1.2. Require that an acoustical analysis be submitted for new development in locations where exterior and/or interior noise levels will likely exceed the City’s noise standards, so that appropriate mitigation measures can be determined. The analysis must comply with the guidelines identified in Table 6‐1 below.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐6 TABLE 6‐1: GUIDELINES FOR ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS

1. The analysis shall be the financial responsibility of the applicant.

2. The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise
assessment and architectural acoustics.

3. Noise levels shall be documented with sufficient
sampling periods and locations to adequately describe
noise conditions and noise sources.

4. Existing and projected (20 years) noise levels shall be estimated in terms of Ldn or CNEL and levels shall be
compared to policies of the Noise Element.

5. Mitigation shall be recommended to comply with the
standards of the Noise Element, giving preference to site planning and design rather than noise barriers.

6. Noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented shall be estimated.

7. A post‐project assessment program to evaluate the
success of mitigation measures shall be described.

Policy NO‐1.3. Encourage the use of site planning and building materials/design as primary methods of noise attenuation.

Implementation Program NO‐1.a. Periodically update existing local noise maps as new information about the community’s noise environment becomes available to ensure accuracy in land use compatibility planning and appropriate mitigation of noise impacts.

Implementation Program NO‐1.b. Adopt and enforce a Noise Ordinance that complies with the State’s Noise Insulation Standards. Said ordinance shall contain policies and regulations addressing both ambient and fixed source noise impacts, including but not limited to:
 Permitted days and hours for nonemergency construction (AM starting time to PM cease of operations).  Permitted days and hours of operation for noise‐generating commercial and industrial outdoor equipment (leaf blowers, parking lot sweepers, etc.) on sites located adjacent to residential areas.  Standards geared primarily toward commercial and industrial land uses, limiting peak noise emissions measured from the property line of the noise generating use.  Guidelines for noise measurement/monitoring activities and enforcement.

GOAL NO‐2. Protect residents from exposure to excessive transportation related noise.

Policy NO‐2.1. Periodically update existing and projected noise contours for all transportation noise sources.

Policy NO‐2.2. Utilize Table 6‐5 as a general guide when considering the feasibility of new development with respect to existing and future transportation noise levels. Noise levels should be measured from the outdoor activity area of each specified use.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐7  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Policy NO‐2.3. Prevent new development of noise‐sensitive land usesin areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation sources which exceed the levels specified in Table 6‐6, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce interior and exterior volumes to the levels specified in that table.

Policy NO‐2.4. Mitigate noise created by new transportation noise sources consistent with the levelsspecified in Table 6‐6 in outdoor activity areas or interior spaces of existing noise‐sensitive land uses.

Policy NO‐2.5. Consider the significance of noise level increases associated with major roadway improvement projects prior to construction. In instances where mitigation will not reduce noise volumes to the levels recommended in Table 6‐6, the following criteria should be used as a test of significance for roadway improvement projects:
a. Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, in the outdoor activity areas of noise‐sensitive uses, roadway improvement projects which increase noise levels to 60 dB Ldnwill not be considered significant.
b. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas of noise‐sensitive land uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.
c.   Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas on noise‐sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.

Policy NO‐2.6. Prevent the introduction of new incompatible land uses in areas impacted by existing and projected operations at Castle Airport.

Policy NO‐2.7. Require an acoustical analysis when noise‐sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels exceeding the levels specified in Table 6‐6 so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design.

Implementation Program NO‐2.a. Require development within the Area of Influence for Castle Airport to comply with the noise standards and recommendations contained within the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for that facility.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐8

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐9  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater GP TABLE 6‐6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Use Outdoor Activity Area1
Ldn/CNEL, dBA
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dBA Leq, dBA2
Residential 603 45  ‐‐
Transient Lodging 603 45  ‐‐
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 603 45  ‐‐
Theaters, Auditoriums,
Music Halls ‐‐  ‐‐  35
Churches, Meeting Halls 603 ‐‐  40
Office Buildings ‐‐  ‐‐  45
Schools, Libraries,
Museums 603 ‐‐  45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks 70  ‐‐  ‐‐
1 The exterior noise‐level standard shall be applied to the outdoor activity area of the receiving land use. Outdoor activity areas are normally located near or adjacent to the main structure and often occupied by porches, patios, balconies, etc. 2 As determined for a typical worst‐case scenario hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce the noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dBA, Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application area of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA, Ldn/CNEL may be allowed, provided that practical exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and that interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.

GOAL NO‐3. Protect the economic base of the City of Atwater by preventing incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise producing uses.

Policy NO‐3.1. Avoid development of new noise‐sensitive uses where the noise levels generated by existing or anticipated non‐transportation sources exceeds the noise level standards of Table 6‐8 as measured immediately within the property line of the new development unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated.

Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 am – 10pm) Nighttime (10pm – 7am) Hourly Leq 55 dB 45 dB
Maximum Level 75 dB 65 dB
Each of the noise levels specified shall be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech, or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

Note:   For the purposes of the Noise Element, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations, and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by Federal and State regulations. Other noise sources are subject to local regulations, such as a noise control ordinance. Non‐transportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, HVAC units, loading docks, etc.

GOAL NO‐4. Prevent the introduction of new fixed noise sources in noise‐sensitive areas.

Policy NO‐4.1. Mitigate noise created by new proposed non‐transportation sources consistent with the noise level standards of Table 6‐8 as measured immediately within the property line of lands designated for noise sensitive land uses.

Policy NO‐4.2. Require an acoustical analysis when proposed new nonresidential land uses or the expansion of existing nonresidential land usesislikely to produce noise level exceeding the performance standards of Table 6‐8 immediately within the property line of existing or planned noise sensitive uses.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐10 Implementation Program NO‐4.a. Use the development review process to ensure that noise impacts are adequately addressed and sufficiently mitigated in accordance with the State’s Noise Insulation Standards and the policies set forth in the General Plan.

EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Traffic Noise Levels
The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD 77‐108) was used to develop Ldn (24‐hour average) noise contours for highways and major roadways in the planning area. The model is based upon the CALVENO noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model predicts hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical 24‐hour period.

Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic modeling performed for the city. Day/night traffic distributions were based upon continuous hourly noise measurement data and Saxelby Acoustics file data for similar roadways. Using these data sources and the FHWA traffic noise prediction methodology, traffic noise levels were calculated for existing conditions. Table 7.0‐2 shows the results of this analysis.

TABLE 7.0‐2: PREDICTED EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVEL AT CLOSEST

RECEPTORS (DB, LDN)
1 DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE

CONTOURS, LDN (FEET)
70 DB 65 DB 60 DB
Olive Avenue From Vine Ave to Vine St 59.0 12 26 55
Atwater Blvd From Golden State Hwy to Maple St 65.3 66 141 304 Bell Dr Bell Ln to Bell Ln 47.0 11 23 49
Applegate Rd Sycamore Ave to Bell Dr. 48.3 57 122 263
Applegate Rd Bell Dr. to Sunset Dr. 55.9 35 75 161
Commerce Ave Commerce Ave to Industry Way 38.3 26 55 119 Atwater Blvd Castle St. to California St 56.3 50 107 231 N Winton Way Grove Ave to Mitchell Ave 54.4 34 73 157
N Winton Way Fruitland Ave to Bellevue Rd 50.4 35 76 164 N Winton Way Camellia Dr to Fruitland Ave 63.4 31 66 143 Bellevue Rd Sixth St to Fifth St 62.6 30 66 141
Juniper Ave Fourth St to Third St 56.8 9 20 43
First St Juniper Ave to Grove Ave 63.2 26 57 122
Shaffer Rd Manzanita Dr to Bellevue Rd 63.2 23 49 107
First St Center St to Village Cir Dr 53.4 22 47 102
E Bellevue Rd Consittution Dr to Muir Ave. 61.6 25 53 115 E Juniper Ave Sierra Madre Dr to Valley St 60.3 19 41 89 N Buhach Rd Garden Dr to E Junipero Ave 62.8 27 57 123

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐11  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVEL AT CLOSEST

RECEPTORS (DB, LDN)
1 DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE

CONTOURS, LDN (FEET)
70 DB 65 DB 60 DB
N Buhach Rd E Junipero Ave to Ave One 59.0 12 26 55
NOTES: DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS ARE MEASURED IN FEET FROM THE CENTERLINES OF THE ROADWAYS. 1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ARE PREDICTED AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS OR AT A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET IN COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AREAS.

SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, CALTRANS, SAXELBY ACOUSTICS., 2024.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each planning area roadway segment.  In some locations, sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls.  However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the planning area roadway segments analyzed in this report.

The actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA model due to roadway curvature, grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers. The distances reported in Table 7.0‐2 are generally considered to be conservative estimates of noise exposure along roadways in the City of Atwater.

Railroad Noise Levels
Railroad activity in the City of Atwater occurs along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line. In order to quantify noise exposure from existing train operations, continuous (24‐ hour) noise level measurement surveys were conducted along the BNSF and UPRR railroad lines.

The purpose of the noise level measurements was to determine typical sound exposure levels (SEL) for railroad line operations, while accounting for the effects of travelspeed, warning horns and other factors which may affect noise generation. In addition, the noise measurement equipment was programmed to identify individual train events so that the typical number of train operations could be determined.

Table 7.0‐3 shows a summary of the continuous noise measurement results for railroad activity within the city.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐12 TABLE 7.0‐3: RAILROAD NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS

MEASUREMENT

LOCATION

RAILROAD
TRACK

GRADE CROSSING
/WARNING HORN
TRAIN EVENTS PER 24‐HR
PERIOD

DISTANCE TO CL AVERAGE SEL
LT‐2 BNSF Yes 36 60’ 107 dBA
LT‐4 UP No 9 110’ 106 dBA
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS – 2023.

Noise measurement equipment consisted of Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with a GRAS ½" microphone. The measurement system was calibrated using a CAL 200 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. Audio recordings of events were captured along with sound measurement data to help with source identification of events. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

To determine the distances to the day/night average (Ldn) railroad contours, it is necessary to calculate the Ldn for typical train operations. This was done using the SEL values and above‐described number and distribution of daily train operations. The Ldn may be calculated as follows:

Ldn = SEL + 10 log Neq ‐ 49.4 dB, where:

SEL is the mean Sound Exposure Level of the event, Neq is the sum of the number of daytime (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) events plus 10 times the number of nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) events per day, and 49.4 is ten times the logarithm of the number of seconds per day. Based upon the above‐described noise level data, number of operations and methods of calculation, the Ldn value for railroad line operations have been calculated, and the distances to the Ldn noise level contours are shown in Table 7.0‐4.

TABLE 7.0‐4: APPROXIMATE DISTANCES TO THE RAILROAD NOISE CONTOURS

MEASUREMENT

LOCATION
EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FEET,
LDN

DISTANCE TO EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS, FEET
60 DB LDN 65 DB LDN 70 DB LDN

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
LT‐2 77 dB 1270’ 590’ 270’

UNION PACIFIC
LT‐4 75 dB 210’ 450’ 210’
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS ‐ 2023.

Aviation Noise Levels
Castle‐Merced County Airport is the main aviation facilities in the proximity of the city, located northeast of Atwater. The airport is owned and operated by Merced County.

In 1995 Castle Airport transitioned from Castle Air Force Base, the conversion of the airfield from military to civilian use hasresulted in a significant change in the characteristics of the noise generated at Castle. However, since the airfield has only recently been converted, the potential future character and volume of aircraft activity at Castle Airport remains uncertain.

Noise impacts and contours for Castle‐Merced County Airport are addressed in Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted by the Merced County Airport Land Use Commission on June 21, 2012. Figure

7.0‐1 shows the most recent noise contours developed for the airport.

City of Atwater General plan
City of Atwater, California
Figure 7.0-1
Airport Noise Contours

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐14 Fixed Noise Sources
The production of noise is a result of many industrial processes, even when the best available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial facilities are controlled by Federal and State employee health and safety regulations (OSHA and Cal‐OSHA), but exterior noise levels may exceed locally acceptable standards. Commercial, recreational, and public service facility activities can also produce noise which affects adjacent sensitive land uses. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components which have a potential to annoy individuals who live nearby. In addition, noise generation from fixed noise sources may vary based upon climatic conditions, time of day, and existing ambient noise levels.

In Atwater, fixed noise sources typically include parking lots, loading docks, parks, schools, and other commercial/retail use noise sources (HVAC, exhaust fans, etc.) From a land use planning perspective, fixed‐source noise control issues focus upon two goals:

1. To prevent the introduction of new noise‐producing uses in noise‐sensitive areas, and

2. To prevent encroachment of noise sensitive uses upon existing noise‐producing facilities.

The first goal can be achieved by applying noise level performance standards to proposed new noise‐producing uses. The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise‐sensitive uses in near proximity to noise‐producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards.

Fixed noise sources which are typically of concern include but are not limited to the following:
 HVAC Systems  Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
 Pump Stations  Lift Stations
 Steam Valves  Steam Turbines
 Generators  Fans
 Air Compressors  Heavy Equipment
 Conveyor Systems  Transformers
 Pile Drivers  Grinders
 Drill Rigs  Gas or Diesel Motors
 Welders  Cutting Equipment
 Outdoor Speakers  Blowers
 Chippers  Cutting Equipment
 Loading Docks  Amplified Music and Voice
The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include, but are not limited to:
wood processing facilities, pump stations, industrial/agricultural facilities, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive‐up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, sand and gravel operations, and special events such as concerts and athletic fields.   Typical noise levels associated with various types of stationary noise sources are shown in Table 7.0‐5.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐15  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 7.0‐5: TYPICAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVELS
USE

NOISE LEVEL
AT 100 FEET,
LEQ1

DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS, FEET
50 DB LEQ
(NO SHIELDING)
45 DB LEQ
(NO SHIELDING)
50 DB LEQ
(WITH 5 DB SHIELDING)
45 DB LEQ
(WITH 5 DB

SHIELDING)
Auto Body Shop 56 dB 200 355 112 200
Auto Repair (Light) 53 dB 141 251 79 141
Busy Parking Lot 54 dB 158 281 89 158
Cabinet Shop 62 dB 398 708 224 398
Car Wash 63 dB 446 792 251 446
Cooling Tower 69 dB 889 1,581 500 889
Loading Dock 66 dB 596 1,059 335 596
Lumber Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794
Maintenance Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794
Outdoor Music Venue 90 dB 10,000 17,783 5,623 10,000
Paint Booth Exhaust 61 dB 355 631 200 355
School Playground /
Neighborhood Park 54 dB 158 281 89 158
Skate Park 60 dB 316 562 178 316
Truck Circulation 48 dB 84 149 47 84
Vendor Deliveries 58 dB 251 446 141 251
1ANALYSIS ASSUMES A SOURCE‐RECEIVER DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET, NO SHIELDING, AND FLAT TOPOGRAPHY.  ACTUAL NOISE LEVELS WILL VARY DEPENDING ON SITE CONDITIONS AND INTENSITY OF THE USE.  THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY, AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR FINAL SITE‐SPECIFIC NOISE STUDIES.

SOURCE:  J.C. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2017.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 7‐16

COMMUNITY NOISE SURVEY
A community noise survey was conducted to document ambient noise levels at various locations throughout the city. Short‐term noise measurements were conducted at seven locations throughout the city on August 22nd, 2023. In addition, five continuous 24‐hour noise monitoring sites were also conducted to record day‐night statistical noise level trends from December 23rd, 2023. The data collected included the hourly average (Leq), median (L50), and the maximum level (Lmax) during the measurement period. Noise monitoring sites and the measured noise levels at each site are summarized in Table 7.0‐6 and Table 7.0‐7. Figure 7.0‐2 showsthe locations of the noise monitoring sites.

TABLE 7.0‐6: EXISTING CONTINUOUS 24‐HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

SITE LOCATION
LDN
(DBA)

MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS, DBA
LOW‐HIGH (AVERAGE)

DAYTIME
(7:00 AM ‐ 10:00 PM)

NIGHTTIME
(10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX
LT‐1 Intersection of Sierra Madre Dr. and
Juniper Ave. 61 59 56 76 54 50 72
LT‐2 South of BNSF Railroad 77 71 61 94 71 53 88
LT‐3 E.L Walters Park 55 50 47 66 48 46 63
LT‐4 North of Atwater Blvd. and UP
Railroad 77 69 65 90 71 58 90
LT‐5 North of CA 99 and UP Railroad 78 74 72 91 72 68 87 SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2023.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
7‐17  General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 7.0‐7: EXISTING SHORT‐TERM COMMUNITY NOISE MONITORING RESULTS SITE LOCATION TIME¹

MEASURED SOUND LEVEL, DB
LEQ L50 LMAX NOTES
ST‐1 Veteran’s Memorial
Park 1:07 p.m. 62 50 72
Secondary noise sources from
ambient nature, vehicle traffic and
neighborhood construction
sounds.

ST‐2
Intersection at
Buckeye Ln and Ave
Two
11:28 a.m. 77 67 98
Primary noise source is traffic on
Tiburon Blvd and secondary noise
source is traffic on Beach Rd and
some construction noises.

ST‐3 Intersection of Herrod
Ave and Violet Ct 12:51 p.m. 58 38 79
Primary noise source is vehicle
traffic on Mar W St. Secondary
noise source is light construction
noises.

ST‐4 Atwater Highschool at
Fruitland Ave. 1:23 p.m. 65 61 76
Primary noise source is vehicle
traffic on Lyford Dr. Secondary
noise source is from Reed
Elementary School.

ST‐5 St Anthony’s Catholic
Church 2:24 p.m. 67 64 81
Primary noise source is Highway
131/Tiburon Blvd. Secondary noise
source is from traffic on Rock Hill
Drive.

ST‐6 Dole Packaged Foods
LLC 1:41 p.m. 51 49 70
Primary noise source is traffic on
Avenida Miraflores. Secondary
noise source is from Del Mar
Middle School.

ST‐7 Intersection at Liberty
Ave. and Central Ave. 2:59 p.m. 51 41 68
Primary noise source is traffic on
Trestle Glan Blvd. Secondary noise
source is from traffic on Turtle
Rocks Court.
1 ‐ ALL COMMUNITY NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES HAVE TEST DURATIONS OF 10:00 MINUTES.

SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2023.

Community noise monitoring equipment included Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with LDL ½" microphones. The measurement systems were calibrated using a LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

The results of the community noise survey shown in Tables 7.0‐6 and 7.0‐7 indicate that existing transportation noise sources were the major contributor of noise observed during daytime hours, especially during vehicle passbys.

.. '111"1,
I )',.

City of Atwater General Plan
City of Atwater, California
Figure 7.0-2
Noise Measurement Sites
Legend
Noise Measurement Site - Long Term
Noise Measurement Site - Short Term
2000 ft 5000ft
Projection: UTM Zone 10 / WGS84 / meters
Rev. Date: 01/22/2024
8000ft

City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-0

Chapter 8
Conservation and Natural Resources
This Chapter includes the following topics:

8.1 Biological Resources

8.2 Air Quality

8.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

8.4 Geology, Soils and Seismicity

8.5 Mineral and Energy Resources

8.6 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.7 Scenic Resources

8.8 Agricultural Resources

8.9 Cultural and Historic Resources
The Conservation and Natural Resources chapter recognizes and describes the city’s natural resources. Natural resources form an important part of the unique character and quality of life within Atwater. These resources can include the city’s biological resources, geology and soils, mineral resources, hydrology and water quality, visual resources, and cultural resources.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-1 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The natural resources within the city and surrounding areas are an important part of the city’s unique character, health, and quality of life. In an effort to identify and understand the key natural resources of the city, this chapter is divided into the following sections:

8.1 Biological Resources

8.2 Air Quality

8.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

8.4 Geology, Soils and Seismicity

8.5 Mineral and Energy Resources

8.6 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.7 Scenic Resources

8.8 Agricultural Resources

8.9 Cultural and Historic Resources

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-2

FINDINGS ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Biological Resources: The planning area includes special status plans and animal species.

Preservation of biological resources habitat, such as foraging lands and waterways, will continue to promote a naturally diverse place for species.

Air Quality: Merced County has a State designation of Nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and is either Unclassified or Attainment for all other criteria pollutants. The County has a national designation of Nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. The County is designated either attainment or unclassified for the remaining national standards.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases: Emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to global climate change. Working to meet state and local climate adaptation goals in order to reduce the effects of climate change should be a priority. For example, there are multiple opportunities for infill development. Development standards can be created to spark development in a pattern that is more walkable and contains a wider diversity of uses.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity: Potentially substantial (though infrequent) geological risks exist in the City from seismic and soil hazards.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Preserving water resources and promoting sustainable water management practices will help meet climate change goals as established by the State of California.

Scenic Resources: Protecting Scenic corridors and views of open spaces and other areas that provide visual relief will make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Atwater.

Agricultural Resources: Approximately 4,267.04 acres of Prime Farmland and 754.24 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance is located within the Panning Area.

Conservation Easements: 3.4 acres of land within the planning area is designated as Williamson ActNon-Prime lands.

Cultural and Historic Resources: The City of Atwater’s General Plan planning area lies within the northern portion of the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people.

Historic Resources are found within the planning area. Opportunities exist for protecting the architectural heritage of Atwater by identifying and preserving significant historic resources, and promoting compatibility in design.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-3 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

8.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes biological resources in the City of Atwater from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The results of this assessment may be used in planning and management decisions that may affect biological resources in the planning area.

KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological resources and the framework that regulates them:

Hydric Soils. One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a wetland, hydric soils have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands.

Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant types that typically occur in wetland areas. Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. Plants are listed in regional publications of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and include such species as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress, willows, mangroves, sedges, rushes, arrowheads, and water plantains.

Sensitive Natural Community. A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, State, or Federal agencies. CEQA identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks sensitive natural communities in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

Special-Status Species. Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by Federal, State, or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by Federal or State endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of State resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as "special status species" in this report, following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the purposes of this assessment, the term “special status” includes those species that are:
• Federally listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11-

17.12);
• Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596-7613); • State listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5); • Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the CDFW as a species of concern (USFWS), rare (CDFW), or of special concern (CDFW);
• Fully protected animals, as defined by the State of California (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050);
• Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380);

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-4 • Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); and
• Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered (List 1A and List 2 status plants in Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Waters of the U.S. The Federal government defines waters of the U.S. as "lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

Wetlands. Wetlands are ecologically complex habitats that support a variety of both plant and animal life.

The Federal government defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)].

Wetlands require wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Examples of wetlands include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that have a hydrologic link to waters of the U.S.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the State and nation including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. Additional information related to the State and Federal Regulatory framework is included in Appendix A of this report.

The following is an overview local regulations that are applicable to implementing the General Plan.

LOCAL
2030 Merced County General Plan
The 2030 Merced County General Plan contains goals, policies and implementation measures related to biological resources which pertain to the Atwater SOI and planning area.

City of Atwater General Plan
The City of Atwater General Plan contains the following goals, policies and implementation measures related to biological resources.

Goal CO-5: Minimize impacts of future development on sensitive habitats.

Policy CO-5.1 Where feasible, avoid development in areas identified as sensitive habitat. Where avoidance is not feasible, apply mitigation measures to development projects to minimize impacts to sensitive habitats.

Implementation Program CO-5.a. Require a mitigation program as a condition for any project that proposes the alteration or loss of any sensitive habitat, if avoidance is not a feasible alternative. The program shall include specifications on replacement of sensitive habitat, including ratios for the creation or enhancement

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-5 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater of sensitive habitat. The program shall also include monitoring requirements and contingency measures should the proposed program inadequately replaces the loss of sensitive habitat.

Goal CO-6. Minimize impacts of development on wildlife and wildlife habitat, particularly special status species.

Policy CO-6.1. Consider opportunities for habitat preservation and enhancement in conjunction with public facility projects, particularly parks and storm drainage facilities.

Policy CO-6.2. Encourage the preservation of corridors between natural habitat areas to allow for the movement of wildlife and to prevent the creation of "biological islands.” Implementation Program CO-6.a. When new development or redevelopment activities are proposed in locations with the potential for special status species to occur, require the project applicant to submit a report by a qualified biologist addressing the presence or absence of any special status species on the development site. The report shall include recommendations for avoiding or minimizing impacts on any special status species or habitat found to be present.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Geomorphic Provinces/Bioregion
The planning area is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton.

Interstate 5 and State Route 99 are the major north-south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion.

The City of Atwater is located on State Route 99.

The bioregion is bordered on the west by the coastal mountain ranges. Its eastern boundary joins the southern two-thirds of the Sierra bioregion, which features Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. At its northern end, the San Joaquin Valley bioregion borders the southern end of the Sacramento Valley bioregion. To the west, south, and east, the bioregion extends to the edges of the valley floor.

Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent. Remnants of the wetland habitats are protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.

Vegetation
Vegetation occurring within the planning area primarily consists of agricultural, ruderal, riparian, and landscaping vegetation. Because of urban nature of the developed areas within the city and the active agricultural uses in surrounding lands, there is limited undisturbed natural vegetation. Common plant species observed in the planning area include: alkali-sink goldfields (Lasthenia chrysantha), Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wright var. wrightii), prostate vernal pool navarreti (Navarretia prostrata), vernal pool smallscale (Atriplex persistens), beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis) among others.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-6 Wildlife
Agricultural, riparian vegetation along the San Joaquin River, and ruderal vegetation found in the planning area provides habitat for both common and special-status wildlife populations. For example, some commonly observed wildlife species in the region include:

American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), San Joaquin kit fox (vulpes macrotis mutica), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sandordii).

Locally common and abundant wildlife species are important components of the ecosystem. Due to habitat loss, many of these species must continually adapt to using agricultural, ruderal, and ornamental vegetation for cover, foraging, dispersal, and nesting.

Plant Communities
Agricultural and natural plant communities provide habitat for a variety of biological resources in the region. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fish and Game Code, or the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, sensitive habitats are usually protected under specific policies from local agencies. Figure 8.1-1 illustrates the plant communities (land cover types) in the planning area.

CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non-vegetated.

According to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System there are 19 cover types (wildlife habitat classifications) in the planning area out of 59 found in the State. These include: Annual Grassland, Barren Land, Coastal Scrub, Cropland, Deciduous Orchard, Dryland Grain Crops, Eucalyptus, Evergreen Orchard, Fresh Emergent Wetland, Irrigated Grain Crops, Irrigated Hayfield, Irrigated Row and Field Crops, Lacustrine, Pasture, Rice, Riverine, Urban Land, Valley Foothill Riparian, and Vineyard.

Table 8.1-1 identifies the area by acreage for each cover type (classification) found in Atwater (City limits and SOI). Figure 8.1-1 illustrates the location of each cover type (classification) within Atwater. A brief description of each cover type follows.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-7 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 8.1-1: COVER TYPES - CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM

COVER TYPE
CITY
(ACRES)
SOI
(ACRES)

PLANNING AREA
(ACRES)
Annual Grassland 24.02 11.02 12.01
Barren 3.56 -- 17.35
Coastal Scrub -- 0.44 --
Cropland -- 2.22 21.57
Deciduous Orchard 221.26 2,761.09 5,308.13
Dryland Grain Crops 143.39 638.10 254.51
Eucalyptus -- 0.89 --
Evergreen Orchard 1.58 27.03 76.66
Fresh Emergent Wetland 4.36 4.92 --
Irrigated Grain Crops 0.89 201.65 53.37
Irrigated Hayfield 54.50 526.87 163.66
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 62.69 816.29 580.90
Lacustrine 12.45 4.45 2.89
Pasture 540.18 939.11 341.31
Rice -- -- 1.11
Riverine 17.69 25.39 17.61
Urban 3,102.42 594.13 129.91
Valley Foothill Riparian -- 0.78 --
Vineyard 5.44 68.55 96.37
Total 4,194.43 6,622.94 7,077.36
SOURCE: SOURCE: CASIL GIS DATA, CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM, 2023

DEVELOPED COVER TYPES
Cropland includes a variety of sizes, shapes, and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet while strawberries are only a few inches high. Although most crops are planted in rows, alfalfa hay and small grains (barley and wheat) form dense stands with up to 100 percent canopy closure. Most croplands support annuals, planted in spring and harvested during summer or fall. In many areas, second crops are commonly planted after harvesting the first. Wheat is planted in fall and harvested in late spring or early summer. Overwintering of sugar beets occurs in the Sacramento Valley, with harvesting in spring after the soil dries. Croplands are located on flat to gently rolling terrain. When flat terrain is put into crop production, it usually is leveled to facilitate irrigation. Rolling terrain is either dry farmed or irrigated by sprinklers. Soils often dictate the crops grown. Climate influences the type of crops grown. Within the planning area, there are 21.57 acres of cropland habitat.

Deciduous orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 ft, but may be 10 ft or less depending on the species. Crowns usually touch, and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows. Deciduous orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors,

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-8 in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. Though some deciduous orchards are non-irrigated, most are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but many deciduous orchards are sprinkler irrigated.

Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most deciduous orchards are in valley or foothill areas, with a few, such as, apples and pears, up to 3,000 feet elevation. Within the planning area, there are 5,308.13 acres of deciduous orchard habitat.

Evergreen orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 ft, but may be 10 ft or less depending on the species. Crowns often do not touch, and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows. Evergreen orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but most evergreen orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most evergreen orchards are in valley or foothill areas. Except for olive, most evergreen orchard trees are not very frost tolerant. Within the planning area, there are 76.66 acres of evergreen orchard habitat.

Dryland Grain Crops are composed of vegetation in the dryland (nonirrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses, primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat. These seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted by drilling in rows which produce solid stands, forming 100 percent canopy at maturity in good stands. They are normally planted in fall and harvested in spring. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in late spring. Within the planning area, there are 254.51 acres of dryland grain crop habitat.

Irrigated Grain Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet tall while dry beans are only several inches tall. Most irrigated grain and seed crops are grown in rows.

Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. All seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months) or they may be irrigated, and then harvested in the late spring. Within the Planning Area, there are 53.37 acres of irrigated grain crop habitat.

Irrigated Hayfield normally has a 2 to 6 months initial growing period, depending on climate, and soil, this habitat is dense, with nearly 100 percent cover. Average height is about 0.46 m. (1.5 feet) tall. Planted fields generally are monocultures (the same species or mixtures or a few species with similar structural properties). Structure changes to a lower stature following each harvest, grows up again and reverts to bare ground following plowing or discing. Plowing may occur annually, but is usually less often. Layering generally does not occur in this habitat. Unplanted "native" hay fields may contain short and tall patches.

If not harvested for a year, they may develop a dense thatch of dead leaves between the canopy and the ground. Within the planning area, there are 163.66 acres of irrigated hayfield habitat.

Irrigated Row and Field Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Cotton and asparagus can be three or four feet tall while others may be a foot or less high. Most irrigated row and field crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. Most are annuals, while others, such as asparagus and strawberries are perennial. The annuals are

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-9 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in the late spring. In some areas of southern California three crops may be grown in a year. Within the planning area, there are 580.90 acres of irrigated row and field crop habitat.

Rice and wild rice are flood irrigated crops that are seed producing annual grasses. Commercial rice generally is only a couple of feet tall, whereas, commercially grown wild rice may be six feet tall or taller.

They are usually grown in leveed fields that are flooded much of the growing period, and dried out to mature and to facilitate harvesting. They usually produce 100 percent canopy closure as they mature. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in fall. Within the planning area, there are 1.11 acre of rice habitat.

Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and wire trellises.

Vines are normally intertwined in the rows but open between rows. Rows under the vines are usually sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion. Vineyards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Most vineyards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of vineyards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most vineyards are in valley or foothill areas. Within the planning area, there are 96.37 acres of vineyard habitat.

Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily-developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs. There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the planning area, there are 129.91 acres of urban habitat.

SHRUB COVER TYPES
Coastal Scrub occurs discontinuously in a narrow strip throughout the length of California, usually occurs within about 45 km (20 mi) of the ocean. Coastal Scrub is typified by low to moderate-sized shrubs with mesophytic leaves, flexible branches, semi-woody stems growing from a woody base, and a shallow root system. Coastal Scrub appears to support numbers of vertebrate species roughly equivalent to those in surrounding habitats. The Federal and State listed endangered peregrine falcon, Morro Bay kangaroo rat and the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander all occur in Coastal Scrub, though not exclusively. A subspecies of the black-tailed gnatcatcher, a California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern, is found exclusively in southern sage scrub. Within the SOI, there are 0.44 acres of Coastal Scrub habitat.

HERBACEOUS COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frost-free season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Within the planning area, there are 12.01 acres of annual grassland habitat.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-10 Fresh emergent wetland habitats occur on virtually all exposures and slopes, provided a basin or depression is saturated or at least periodically flooded. They are most common on level to gently rolling topography.

They are found in various depressions or at the edge of rivers or lakes. Soils are predominantly silt and clay, although coarser sediments and organic material may be intermixed. In some areas organic soils (peat) may constitute the primary growth medium. Climatic conditions are highly variable and range from the extreme summer heat to winter temperatures well below freezing. Within the SOI, there are 4.92 acres of fresh emergent wetland habitat.

Pasture vegetation is a mix of perennial grasses and legumes that normally provide 100 percent canopy closure. Height of vegetation varies, according to season and livestock stocking levels, from a few inches to two or more feet on fertile soils before grazing. Old or poorly drained pastures may have patches of weeds in excess of two feet in height. Within the planning area, there are 341.31 acres of pasture habitat.

TREE DOMINATED COVER TYPES
Valley-foothill riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. Valleys provide deep alluvial soils and a high water table. The substrate is coarse, gravelly, or rocky soils more or less permanently moist, but probably well aerated. Frost and short periods of freezing occur in winter (200 to 350 frost-free days). This habitat is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild and wet winters. Temperatures range from 75 to 102 F in the summer to 29 to 44 F in the winter. Average precipitation ranges from 6-30 inches, with little or no snow. The growing season is 7 to 11 months. Within the planning area, there are 0.78 acres of valley-foothill riparian habitat.

Eucalyptus habitats range from single-species thickets with little or no shrubby understory to scattered trees over a well-developed herbaceous and shrubby understory. In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy. Stand structure for this habitat may vary considerably because most eucalyptus have been planted into either rows for wind protection or dense groves for hardwood production and harvesting. Eucalyptus is often found in monotypic stands. The genus is composed of over 150 species with high morphological diversity. Thus, habitat structure may be affected if more than two or three species coexist. Tree size may vary considerably depending on spacing and species. Typically, trees may range in height from 26 to 40 m (87 to 133 ft) and have diameters (dbh) of 21.8 to 38.4 cm (8.6 to 15.1 in) (Walters 1980), with most growth occurring in the first 15 years. Trees in excess of 46 to 80 m (152 to 264 ft) are not uncommon. Within the SOI, there are 0.89 acres of eucalyptus habitat.

OTHER HABITATS
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way.

The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near-vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within the planning area, there are 20.91 acres of barren habitat.

Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. This habitat requires intermittent or continually running water generally originating at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-11 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Within the planning area, there are 17.61 acres of riverine habitat.

Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water. They may vary from small ponds less than one hectare to large areas covering several square kilometers. Depth can vary from a few centimeters to hundreds of meters. Typical lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs (e.g., Lake Tahoe and Shasta Lake), intermittent lakes (e.g., playa lakes) and ponds (including vernal pools) so shallow that rooted plants can grow over the bottom. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not. Within the planning Area, there are

2.89 acres of lacustrine habitat.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within 1 mile and within a 9 Quad search area of Atwater.

Special Status Plants
The search revealed documented occurrences of 1 special status plant species within one mile of the Atwater planning area. The search revealed documented occurrences of 32 special status plant species within a Nine-Quad search of the Atwater planning area.

There was 1 occurrences of special-status plant species located within a 1-mile search of the planning area.

Figure 8.1-2 illustrates the special status species located within a 1-mile search of the planning area. Figure

8.1-3 illustrates the special status species located within a 9-Quad search of the planning area.

TABLE 8.1-2: SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (1 MILE)

PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2024

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-12 TABLE 8.1-3: SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (9 QUAD)

PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Astragalus tener var. tener Alkali-milk-vetch None None Lasthenia chrysantha Alkali-sink goldfields None None
Clarkia rostrata Beaked clarkia None None
Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass None None
Neostapfia colusana Colusa grass Threatened Endangered
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields None None Eryngium racemosum Delta button-celery None Endangered
Downingia pusilla Dwarf downingia None None
Tuctoria greenei Greene’s tuctoria Endangered Rare
Orcuttia pilosa Hairy Orcutt grass Endangered Endangered Psuedobahia bahiifolia Hartweg’s golden
sunburst
Endangered Endangered
Artiplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale None None
Lepidium latipes var. heckardii Heckard’s pepper-grass None None Agrostis hendersonii Henderson’s bent grass None None
Cholorpyron molle ssp. hispidum Hispid salty bird’s-beak None None Calycadenia hooveri Hoover’s calycadenia None None
Euphorbia hooveri Hoover’s spurge Threatened None
Sidalcea keckii Keck’s checkerbloom Endangered None
Atriplex minuscula Lesser saltscale None None
Monardella leucocephala Merced monardella None None
Phacelia ciliate var. opaca Merced phacelia None None
Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian doder None None Navarretia prostata Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
None None
Delphinium recurvatum Recurved larkspur None None
Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
Threatened Endangered
Sagittaria sandfordii Sanford’s arrowhead None None
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians Shining navarretia None None Ernygium sinosepalum Spiny-sealed buttonceleryNone None Valley Sacaton Grassland Valley Sacaton
Grassland
None None
Atriplex persistens Vernal pool smallscale None None
Brasenia schreberi watershield None None
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Wright’s trichocoronis None None SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2024

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-13 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Special Status Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of 26 special status animal species within a 9-Quad search of the planning area. Of these species, 7 are documented within one mile of the city. Tables 8.1-4, and 8.1- 5 provide a list of the special-status animal species that are documented within one mile and 9-Quad of the planning area, and current protective status, respectively.

TABLE 8.1-4: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (ONE MILE)

ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened Anthene cunicularia Burrowing owl None None
Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk None None
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk None Threatened
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird None Threatened
Vulpes macrotis San Joaquin kit fox Endangered Threatened Emys marmorata Western pond turtle None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2024

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-14 TABLE 8.1-5: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (9 QUAD)

ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened Lithobates pipiens Northern leopard frog None None
Spea hammondii Western spadefoot None None
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Delisted Endangered Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl None None
Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk None None
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk None Threatened
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored bird None Threatened
Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat None None
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1 Green sturgeon-southern DPS Threatened None Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead None None
Oncorphynchus mykiss irideus
pop.11
Steelhead-Central Valley DPS Threatened None
Taxidea taxus American badger None None
Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None None
Dipodomys heermanni dixoni Merced kangaroo rat None None Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None None
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Endangered Threatened Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse None None Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat None None Lasiurus frantzii Yuma myotis None None
Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Endangered Endangered Phrynosoma blainvillii Coast horned lizard None None
Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake Threatened Threatened Anniella pulchra Northern California legless
lizard
None None
Emys marmorata Western pond turtle None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2024
Special Status Invertebrate Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of 11 special status invertebrate animals including insect species within a 9-quad search area. Of these species, two (California linderiella and vernal pool fairy shrimp) are documented within one mile of the planning area. Tables 8.1-6, provides a list of the specialstatus Invertebrate Animal species that are documented within 9-Quad of the planning area, and their current protective status.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-15 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater TABLE 8.1-6: SPECIAL STATUS INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (9 QUAD)

ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS CALIFORNIA STATUS Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp Endangered None Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp Threatened None Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella None None Branchinecta mesovallensis Midvalley fairy shrimp None None Branchinecta longiantenna Longhorn fairy shrimp Endangered None Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Endangered None Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle Threatened None Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee None None
Myrmosula pacifica Antioch multilid wasp None None
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None Candidate Endangered Lytta molesta Molestan blister beetle None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2024

Longview Ave
N Winton Way
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave
W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Grove Ave
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
Figure 8.1-1. Landcover Types
Sources: CAL FIRE California Vegetation by Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type 2015 (FVEG15_1); Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database. 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City
Boundary
Sphere of
Influence
Planning Area
Natural Vegetation
Annual Grassland
Coastal Scrub
Eucalyptus
Valley Foothill
Riparian
Agriculture
Cropland
Dryland Grain
Crops
Irrigated Grain
Crops
Irrigated Row
and Field Crops
Irrigated Hayfield
Rice
Vineyard
Deciduous
Orchard
Evergreen
Orchard
Pasture
Water
Lacustrine
Riverine
Fresh Emergent
Wetland
Other
Urban
Barren
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023

Longview Ave
N Winton Way
Shasta Dr
Co Rd 37
Olive Ave
Franklin Rd
E Juniper Ave
1st St
E Bellevue Rd
Campbell Blvd
Wallace Rd
N Gurr Rd
Shaffer Rd
Camellia Dr
Steinberg Rd
3rd St
Bell Dr
Elm Ave
5th
St
Liberty Ave
Giannini Rd
Southern Pacific Ave
Hospital Rd
Co Rd J18
Cedar Ave W Bellevue Rd
6th St
Gertrude Ave
Arena Way
Juniper Ave
Valley St
Center St
Lagoon Ave
Crest Rd
Nebela Dr
Virginia St
Augusta Ln
Almond Ave
Fairway Dr
Canal Dr
Broadway Ave
E Holly Ave
High St
Linden St
Ashby Rd
Bellevue Rd
Moran Rd
Swan Rd
Stein Rd
Grove Ave
Bert Crane Rd
Orchard Park
Applegate Rd
Central Ave
W Ave 2
Sunset Dr
W Ave 1
Commerce Ave
Trindade Rd
Fruitland Ave
Truckee Dr
Sultana Ave Sultana Dr
Rose Ave
Rogers Rd
Bell Dr W Cardella Rd
Longview Rd
Atwater Jordan Rd
Hull Rd
Vine Ave
Magnolia Rd
White Crane Rd
W Belcher Ave
Elk Rd
99 140
Industry Wy
CASTLE

AIRPORT
WINTON
Figure 8.1-2. California Natural Diversity Database 1-mile Search 0 ½ 1
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
1-mile Planning Area
Buffer
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Community
(non-specific)
Terrestrial Community
(circular) Sources: CNDDB version 7/30/2023*; Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; CalTrans Aviation; USGS Roads Database.

Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023

165
140
59 233
59 165
33 33
99 140
99 140
5 DENAIR MONTPELIER TURLOCK LAKE SNELLING

TURLOCK CRESSEY WINTON YOSEMITE LAKE

STEVINSON ARENA ATWATER MERCED

SAN LUIS
RANCH

TURNER RANCH SANDY MUSH EL NIDO
Figure 8.1-3. California Natural Diversity Database Quad-based Search 0 1 2
Miles

L E G E N D
Atwater City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Areas
Planning Area
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Community
(specific)
Terrestrial Community
(non-specific)
Terrestrial Community
(circular)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental
Occurrence
Sources: CNDDB version 7/30/2023*; Merced County GIS; City of Atwater GIS; USGS Roads Database.

Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area
Produced by De Novo Planning Group for the City of Atwater September 1, 2023

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-19 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

8.2 AIR QUALITY
This section provides an overview of air quality within the planning area and the vicinity.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the local agency with primary responsibility for compliance with both the federal and state standards and for ensuring that air quality conditions are maintained. They do this through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD are divided into three regions. These include:
• Northern Region: Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties • Central Region: Madera, Fresno, and Kings Counties
• Southern Region: Tulare and Valley portion of Kern Counties Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the FCAA and CCAA.

SJVAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS
The SJVAPCD has adopted numerous rules and regulations to implement its air quality plans. Following, are significant rules that will apply to development under the General Plan.

Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is comprised of District Rules 8011 through 8081 which are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.

Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 4002 applies in the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); this rule applies to all sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Rule 4102 – Nuisance
Rule 4102 dictates that if a source operation emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials such that the emissions create a public nuisance, the owner/operator may be subject to APCD enforcement action.

Rule 4103 – Open Burning
Rule 4103 prohibits the burning of agricultural material when the land is converting from agriculture to non-agricultural (i.e. urban) purposes.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-20 Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings
Rule 4601 limits emissions of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings by specifying storage, cleanup and labeling requirements.

Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed Project will be subject to Rule 4641.

This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review
Rule 9510 indirectly limits the vehicular emissions contribution of new development to regional air pollution. Through an application and review process, the developer may incorporate emission-reduction features in the project or may pay the fee prescribed in the rule. Fees collected by the APCD are indexed to the cost of providing offsetting mitigation and are used for that purpose.

City of Atwater General Plan
The existing Atwater General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and implementation programs related to air quality:

Goal CO-3: Strive to reduce air emissions and obtain goals set in local and regional air quality attainment plans.

Policy CO-3.1. Cooperate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in implementing air quality improvement plans prepared by the District.

Policy CO-3.2. Encourage land use development projects that would result in fewer adverse air quality impacts, such as mixed use and pedestrian-oriented projects.

Policy CO-3.3. Encourage the use of modes of transportation other than automobiles.

Implementation Program CO-3.a. In cooperation with the APCD, adopt thresholds of significance for air quality impacts that the City can apply in the evaluation of development projects for which the City has received an application, and for use in developing mitigation measures that may be necessary.

Implementation Program CO-3.b. Implement the sections of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as the development of the bikeway system.

Implementation Program CO-3.c. Incorporate as a condition of approval for projects that include significant grading or other earth moving activities measures that control emissions of dust.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-21 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB)
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) consists of eight counties, stretching from Kern County in the south to San Joaquin County in the north. The SJVAB is bounded by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.

The surrounding topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin and, as a result, impede the dispersion of pollutants from the basin. Inversion layers are formed in the SJVAB throughout the year. (An inversion layer is created when a mass of warm dry air sits over cooler air near the ground, preventing vertical dispersion of pollutants from the air mass below). During the summer, the San Joaquin Valley experiences daytime temperature inversions at elevations from 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. During the winter months, inversions occur from 500 to 1,000 feet above the valley floor (SJVAPCD, 2002).

The pollution potential of the San Joaquin Valley is very high. Surrounding elevated terrain in conjunction with temperature inversions frequently restrict lateral and vertical dilution of pollutants. Abundant sunshine and warm temperatures in summer are ideal conditions for the formation of photochemical oxidant, and the Valley is a frequent scene of photochemical pollution.

Climate
The SJVAB has an inland Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cooler winters. The average daily maximum temperature in the Basin is 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with average temperature highs of 95 °F in July. Average daily minimum temperature is 48 °F, with average temperature lows of 45 °F in January. Normal rainfall level is approximately 9 inches per year, and occurs mainly in the winter months from November to April. Thunderstorms occur on approximately three to four days in the spring, on average.

Merced County has warm, dry days and relatively cool nights, with clear skies and limited rainfall. Winters are mild with light rains and frequent heavy fog from December to January.

In summer, high temperatures often exceed 100 degrees, with averages in the low 90’s in the northern valley and the high 90’s in the southern valley. Summer low temperatures average in the high 50’s in the northern valley and the upper 60’s in the southern valley. The northern end of the Valley (Lathrop, Manteca, and Stockton area) receives approximately 20 inches of rain per year. The central portion of the Valley (Fresno area) receives approximately 10 inches of rain per year. The southern end of the Valley (Bakersfield area) receives less than 6 inches of rain per year.

Air Movement
Marine air comes into the basin from the Sacramento River–San Joaquin River Delta, although most air movement is restricted by the surrounding mountains. Winds from the Bay Area flow northeasterly into the Sacramento Valley and southward into San Joaquin County. This results in weak winds from the north and northeast, with an average speed of seven miles per hour.

Wind speed and direction determine the dispersion of air pollutants. During the summer, wind from the north flows south and southeasterly through the Valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. Thus, emissions from the San Francisco Bay Area and the Broader Sacramento air basins

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-22 are transported into San Joaquin County and the Valley. Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are then transported to the Southeast Desert and Great Basin Valley Air Basins. In late fall and winter, cold air from the mountains flows into the Valley. This results in winds from the south that flow north and northwesterly.

Some emissions from San Joaquin County are transported to the Broader Sacramento air basin during these times. But the winds are relatively light, limiting the dispersion of CO and other pollutants. Thus, high concentrations of CO remain in the Valley.

Seasonal Pollution Variations
Carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and lead particulate concentrations are highest in the late fall and winter when there is little interchange of air between the valley and the coast and when humidity is high following winter rains. This type of weather is associated with radiation fog, known as tule fog, when temperature inversions at ground level persist over the entire valley for several weeks and air movement is virtually absent.

Pollution potential in the San Joaquin County area is relatively high due to the combination of air pollutant emissions sources, transport of pollutants into the area and meteorological conditions that are conducive to high levels of air pollution. Elevated levels of particulate matter (primarily very small particulates or PM10) and ground-level ozone are of most concern to regional air quality officials.

Local carbon monoxide “hot spots” are important to a lesser extent. Ground-level ozone, the principal component of smog, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by the reaction of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (known as ozone precursor pollutants) in the presence of strong sunlight. Ozone levels are highest in San Joaquin County during late spring through early fall, when weather conditions are conducive and emissions of the precursor pollutants are highest.

Surface-based inversions that form during late fall and winter nights cause localized air pollution problems (PM10 and carbon monoxide) near the emission sources because of poor dispersion conditions. Emission sources are primarily from automobiles. Conditions are exacerbated during drought-year winters.

Sunlight
The presence and intensity of sunlight are necessary prerequisites for the formation of photochemical smog. Under the influence of the ultraviolet radiation of sunlight, certain original or “primary” pollutants (mainly reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) react to form “secondary” pollutants (primarily oxidants). Since this process is time dependent, secondary pollutants can be formed many miles downwind from the emission sources. Because of the prevailing daytime winds and time delayed nature of photochemical smog, oxidant concentrations are highest in the inland areas of the San Joaquin Valley.

Temperature Inversions
A temperature inversion is a reversal in the normal decrease of temperature as altitude increases. In most parts of the country, air near ground level is warmer than the air above it. Semi-permanent systems of high barometric pressure fronts establish themselves over the basin, deflecting low-pressure systems that might otherwise bring cleansing rain and winds. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height” and controls the volume of air available for the mixing and dispersion of air pollutants.

The interrelationship of air pollutants and climatic factors are most critical on days of greatly reduced atmospheric ventilation. On days such as these, air pollutants accumulate because of the simultaneous occurrence of three favorable factors: low inversions, low maximum mixing heights and low wind speeds.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-23 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Although these conditions may occur throughout the year, the months of July, August and September generally account for more than 40 percent of these occurrences.

The potential for high contaminant levels varies seasonally for many contaminants. During late spring, summer, and early fall, light winds, low mixing heights, and sunshine combine to produce conditions favorable for the maximum production of oxidants, mainly ozone. When strong surface inversions are formed on winter nights, especially during the hours before sunrise, coupled with near-calm winds, carbon monoxide from automobile exhausts becomes highly concentrated. The highest yearly concentrations of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen and measured during November, December and January.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Criteria Pollutants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Each criteria pollutant is described below.

Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While ozone in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of ozone at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.

These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak ozone levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both VOCs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources.

VOCs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents.

The reactivity of ozone causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of ozone not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to ozone for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. When CO enters the bloodstream, it reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. Health threats are most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide. NOx plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce ozone. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-24 emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.

Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust.

Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and VOCs are also considered particulate matter.

Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural activities (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly dieselpowered vehicles. PM10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997, the EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2.5.

The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate matter also impacts soils and damages materials, and is a major cause of visibility impairment.

Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, mental retardation and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-25 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.

It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

Sensitive Receptors
A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants.

Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.

Ambient Air Quality
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 5.3-1 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter (PM10).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established new national air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997. The 1-hour ozone standard was phased out and replaced by

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-26 an 8-hour standard of 0.075 PPM. Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed by litigation, but was determined to be valid and enforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision issued in February of 2001. In April 2005, the Air Resources Board approved a new eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm and retained the one-hour ozone standard of 0.09 after an extensive review of the scientific literature. The U.S.

EPA signed a final rule for the Federal ozone eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015.

TABLE 8.2-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--

0.070 ppm

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour

9.0 ppm

35.0 ppm

9.0 ppm

20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour

0.053 ppm

0.100 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour

0.03 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.075 ppm
--

0.04 ppm

0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual
24-Hour
--
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5 Annual
24-Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Avg.
3-Month Avg.
--

0.15 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3
--
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, µG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER SOURCES: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2024.

In 1997, new national standards for fine particulate matter diameter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current PM10 standards were to be retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.

Existing air quality concerns within the project area is related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.

Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-27 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.

Merced County has a State designation of Nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and is either Unclassified or Attainment for all other criteria pollutants. The County has a national designation of Nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. The County is designated either attainment or unclassified for the remaining national standards. Table 8.2-2 presents the State and national attainment status for Merced County.

TABLE 8.2-2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfates Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AREA DESIGNATIONS MAPS / STATE AND NATIONAL), 2024.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-28 Air Quality Monitoring
SJVAPCD and CARB maintains air quality monitoring sites in Merced County that collect data for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air quality monitoring site to Atwater is the Merced-2334 M Street monitoring site, although ozone data was not available for this location. Therefore, data from the next closest monitoring site, the Merced-S Coffee Avenue monitoring site, was used for ozone. The Federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the EPA in 2005, but subsequent litigation reinstated portions of implementation requirements under the revoked standard. As a result, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard in September 2013 to address the reinstated requirements for this standard. Data obtained from the monitoring sites between 2020 through 2022 is shown in Table 8.2-3.

TABLE 8.2-3: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA (MERCED-2334 M STREET)* Pollutant
Cal. Fed.

Year Max
Concentration
Days Exceeded
Primary Standard State/Fed Standard
Ozone (O3)
(1-hour)

0.09 ppm for
1 hour NA
2022
2021
2020

0.096

0.099

0.100
2 / (N/A)
2 / (N/A)
2 / (N/A)
Ozone (O3)
(8-hour)

0.07 ppm for
8 hour

0.07 ppm for
8 hour
2022
2021
2020

0.083

0.090

0.088
10 / 0
24 / 2
21 / 2
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
50 ug/m3 for
24 hours
150 ug/m3
for 24 hours
2022
2021
2020
100.5

85.8 209.9
(N/A) / (N/A)
(N/A)/ (N/A)
(N/A) / 5.8
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
No 24 hour
State
Standard
35 ug/m3 for
24 hours
2022
2021
2020

43.7 72.9

86.0 (N/A) / 4.1
(N/A) / 14.3
(N/A) / 27.7
NOTE: DATA FOR THE MERCED-S COFFEE AVENUE MONITORING SITE WAS AVAILABLE FOR PM2.5 AND PM10 (THOUGH NOT FOR OZONE); SINCE IT IS A CLOSER LOCATION TO PLANNING AREA THAN THE MERCED-2334 M STREET MONITORING SITE, DATA FOR PM2.5AND PM10 FOR THIS LOCATION IS PROVIDED IN THIS TABLE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR (ADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-29 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

8.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This section provides an overview of sources of greenhouse gases within the planning area and the vicinity.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

REGIONAL
PG&E Integrated Resource Plan PG&E adopted the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on September 1, 2020, to provide guidance for serving the electricity and natural gas needs of residents and businesses within its service area while fulfilling regulatory requirements. The IRP contains the following objectives that are relevant to the Project:
• Clean Energy: In 2021, PG&E delivered nearly 50 percent of its electricity from RPS-eligible renewable resources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower. In addition, PG&E’s GHG-free energy production, which encompasses renewable resources, large hydropower, and nuclear, satisfied all of PG&E’s bundled retail sales in 2021. • Reliability: PG&E’s IRP analysis includes PG&E’s contribution to system and local reliability, in compliance with the CPUC’s resource adequacy requirements, especially as California transitions toward higher shares of GHG-free generation resources.
• Affordability: PG&E’s IRP analysis selects resources to meet the state’s clean energy and reliability goals and provides a system average rate forecast in compliance with the CPUC’ s requirements for investor-owned utilities.

LOCAL
City of Atwater General Plan
The existing Atwater General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and implementation programs related to air quality:

Goal CO-3: Strive to reduce air emissions and obtain goals set in local and regional air quality attainment plans.

Policy CO-3.1. Cooperate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in implementing air quality improvement plans prepared by the District.

Policy CO-3.2. Encourage land use development projects that would result in fewer adverse air quality impacts, such as mixed use and pedestrian-oriented projects.

Policy CO-3.3. Encourage the use of modes of transportation other than automobiles.

Implementation Program CO-3.a. In cooperation with the APCD, adopt thresholds of significance for air quality impacts that the City can apply in the evaluation of development projects for which the City has received an application, and for use in developing mitigation measures that may be necessary.

Implementation Program CO-3.b. Implement the sections of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as the development of the bikeway system.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-30 Implementation Program CO-3.c. Incorporate as a condition of approval for projects that include significant grading or other earth moving activities measures that control emissions of dust.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Climate Change Action Plan In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted its Climate Change Action Plan. The Climate Change Action Plan directed the SJVAPCD's Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist APCD staff, Valley businesses, land use agencies and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. Regarding CEQA guidance, some of the goals of the Climate Change Action Plan are to assist local land use agencies, developers and the public by identifying and quantifying GHG emission reduction measures for development projects and by providing tools to streamline evaluation of project-specific GHG effects, and to assist Valley businesses in complying with State law related to GHG emissions.

A product of this direction to provide CEQA guidance is the Final Staff Report – Climate Change Action Plan:

Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts, presented to the APCD Board in December 2009. A central component of the Final Staff Report is the establishment of Best Performance Standards, which are specifications or project design elements that identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures. Emission reductions achieved through Best Performance Standards implementation would be pre-quantified, thus negating the need for project-specific quantification of GHG emissions.

For projects not implementing Best Performance Standards, demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Appendix J of the Final Staff Report provides a table of GHG emission reduction measures for development projects, along with a point value that corresponds to a percentage decrease in GHG emissions when available.

Merced County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS/RTP) The 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) / Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) is a long range planning document that provides the framework for investments in roads, freeways, public transit, bikeways and other ways people move around our County for the next 25 years. It also helps us comply with State-mandated efforts to reduce greenhouse gases (SB375).

The eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are coordinating on some aspects of these planning efforts to maximize resources, with each area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) developing a separate plan. MPOs are responsible for setting transportation policy and priorities for a region and documenting how transportation funds will be spent in a Regional Transportation Plan.

The policies contained in the 2022 Merced County RTP/SCS for Sustainable Communities are as follows:
• Prioritize infill and growth in existing communities. • Prioritize funding for complete street projects on existing corridors. • Explore funding sources to incentivize jurisdictions. • Re-evaluate project selection criteria to better harmonize with sustainability goals. • Prioritize vanpools and ridesharing.
• Emphasize and explain “co-benefits” of implementing SB 375 in addition to meeting GHG reduction targets

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-31 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater • Enhance the existing public participation process.
• Enhance existing transit services.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets included in the 2022 Merced County RTP/SCS are as follows:
• GHG reduction target compliance (2035 meets 14 percent reduction of 2005 baseline conditions)

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Linkages
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).

GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial and electricity generation sectors (California Energy Commission, 2023).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively.

California produced 369 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2022 (California Air Resources Board, 2023).

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-32 Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2022, accounting for 38% of total GHG emissions in the State. This category was followed by the industrial sector (23%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (16%), the agriculture and forestry sector (9%), the residential energy consumption sector (8%), and the commercial energy consumption sector (6%) (California Air Resources Board, 2023).

Effects of Global Climate Change
The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify. The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.

If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened.

Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 50% to 75% by the end of the 21st century (National Resources Defense Council, 2014). This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands. As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.

PUBLIC HEALTH
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90o
F in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-33 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

WATER RESOURCES
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the State (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.

If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%.

Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.

AGRICULTURE
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold.

However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products.

Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts, and milk.

Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established.

Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps.

Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-34

FORESTS AND LANDSCAPES
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the State. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.

Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State.

For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.

RISING SEA LEVELS
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.

Energy Production and Consumption
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel fuel, natural gas, and energy used to generate electricity) are most widely used form of energy in the State.

However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33% of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and to achieve zero-carbon emissions by 2045 (as passed in September 2018, under AB 100).

Overall, in 2018, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked fourth-lowest in the nation (U.S. EIA, 2024a). California’s per capita rate of energy usage has remained relatively constant since the 1970’s. Many State regulations since the 1970’s, including new building energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State in check.

The consumption of non-renewable energy (i.e. fossil fuels) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles, results in GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change.

Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.

Electricity Consumption
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. In 2016, more than one-fourth of the electricity supply comes from facilities outside of the State. Much of the power delivered to California from states in the

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-35 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Pacific Northwest was generated by wind. States in the Southwest delivered power generated at coal-fired power plants, at natural gas-fired power plants, and from nuclear generating stations (U.S. EIA, 2024a). In 2022, approximately 42 percent of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation was fueled by natural gas. In addition, about 42 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from nonhydroelectric renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Another 8 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from hydroelectric generation, and nuclear energy powered an additional 88 percent. The amount of electricity generated from coal is negligible (U.S. EIA, 2024a). The percentage of renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as directed by the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity consumption in 1997 was 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (U.S. EIA, 2024a). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010.

PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that, under contract with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), generates, purchases, and distributes energy. PG&E’s service area covers 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.

PG&E’s, electricity is generated from a combination of traditional sources, such as coal-fired plants, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, or “solar farms.” “The grid,” or bulk electric grid, is a network of high-voltage transmission lines that link power plants to the PG&E system. The distribution system, comprising lowervoltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level. It consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to individual customers.

In addition to its base plan, PG&E has three plan options, known as Solar Choice options and Green Saver, which give customers the option of purchasing energy from solar resources. The first Solar Choice option provides up to 50 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources, while the other option provides up to 100 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources, and the Green Saver option provides up to 90 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources.

Table 8.3-1 outlines PG&E’s power mix in 2021, compared to the power mix for the state. The table identifies the renewable and non-renewable energy sources for PG&E. It should be noted that some GHG free sources are not considered renewable (e.g., nuclear is GHG free but not renewable).

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-36 TABLE 8.3-1: PG&E AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA POWER MIX IN 2021 Energy Resources PG&E Option:

Base
PG&E Option:
50% Solar
Choice
PG&E Option:
100% Solar
PG&E
Option:

Green Saver
California
Power Mix
2021
Eligible
Renewable 47.7% 70.9% 93.9% 89.9% 33.6%
Biomass and
waste

4.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%
Geothermal 5.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%
Small
hydroelectric 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
Solar 25.7% 59.8% 93.9% 89.9% 14.2%
Wind 10.9% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4%
Coal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
Large
Hydroelectric 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Natural Gas 8.9% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9%
Nuclear 39.3% 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.3%
Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Unspecified 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 10.1% 6.8%
SOURCE: PG&E. 2021. BUILDING A CLEANER, SAFER ENERGY FUTURE. AVAILABLE:

HTTPS://WWW.PGE.COM/PGE_GLOBAL/COMMON/PDFS/YOUR-ACCOUNT/YOUR-BILL/UNDERSTAND-YOUR-BILL/BILLINSERTS/2022/1022-POWER-CONTENT-LABEL.PDF. ACCESSED: FEBRUARY 28, 2024.

A. ELECTRICITY FROM TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE NOT TRACEABLE TO SPECIFIC GENERATION SOURCES ARE CLASSIFIED AS UNSPECIFIED SOURCES OF POWER.

Oil
The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decades. As of 2016, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day. The United States, with approximately five percent of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (U.S. EIA, 2024b). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum-based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the State’s transportation energy needs.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-37 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Natural Gas/Propane
The State produces approximately 12 percent of its natural gas, while obtaining 22 percent from Canada and 65 percent from the Rockies and the Southwest. In 2006, California produced 325.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

PG&E is the largest publicly-traded utility in California and provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the Merced County area. PG&E’s natural gas (i.e., methane) delivery system includes 42,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines. PG&E’s gas transmission system serves approximately 15 million energy customers in California. The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program in real time on a 24-hour basis, with leak inspections, surveys, and patrols continuously taking place along the pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada. Transmission pipelines send natural gas from the fields and storage facilities. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to individual businesses or residences.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report 8-38

8.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
This section addresses seismic and geologic hazards in the City of Atwater. For hazards relating to flooding, wildfire, and hazardous materials see Section 6.0 (Hazards and Safety)

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
LOCAL
City of Atwater General Plan
The existing Atwater General Plan includes the following policies and implementation measures related to geology and soils in Chapter 5 Seismic and Public Safety Chapter:

Policy SF-1.1. Require all new development and rehabilitation of existing development to be in compliance with all Seismic Zone 3 requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

Policy SF-2.1. Require a geotechnical study for all projects located in areas that are subject to high groundwater tables, as noted in Figure 5-2, to assess the probability of liquefaction occurrence on project site. The geotechnical study shall identify any required design or construction mitigation to reduce potential impacts.

Policy SF-3.1. Require all project applications that propose extraction of groundwater to include a report evaluating the potential for subsidence. The report shall discuss appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the potential for subsidence.

GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regional Geology
The planning area lies in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The San Joaquin Valley is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley, also known as the Central Valley, is a topographically flat, northwest-trending, structural trough (or basin) about 50 miles wide and 450 miles long. It is bordered by the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, the Klamath Mountains on the north, the Sierra Nevada on the east, and the Coast Ranges on the west.

The San Joaquin Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. Large alluvial fans have developed on each side of the Valley. The larger and more gently sloping fans are on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, and overlie metamorphic and igneous basement rocks. These basement rocks are exposed in the Sierra Nevada foothills and consist of meta-sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rocks.

Local Setting

TOPOGRAPHY
The planning area is relatively flat. The City of Atwater is at an elevation of 151 feet. Figure 8.4-1 shows the USGS Atwater Quadrangle Topographic view.

8.0 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8-39 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater SOILS
A Custom Soil Survey was completed for the planning area using the NRCS Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 8.4-2. Table 8.4-1 below identifies the type and range of soils found in the planning area.

TABLE 8.4-1: PLANNING AREA SOILS

NAME ACRES
AaA- Alamo clay (0-1%) 38.26
AdA- Atwater loamy sand, deep hardpan, poorly drained (0%) 465.01 AfA- Atwater loamy sand (0-3%) 2,112.34
AfB- Atwater loamy sand (3-8%) 38.82
AgA- Atwater loamy sand, deep over hardpan (0-3%) 3,737.46 AgB- Atwater loamy sand, deep over hardpan (3-8%) 71.32 AkA- Atwater loamy sand, imperfectly drained (0-3%) 255.97 AnA- Atwater sand (0-3%) 8,432.43
AnB- Atwater sand (3-8%) 801.48
DcA- Delhi loamy fine sand, silty substratum (0-3%) 80.38 DeA-Delhi loamy sand, silty substratum (0-3%) 46.67
DfA- Delhi sand (0-3%) MLRA 17 687.85
DfB-Delhi sand (3-8%) MLRA 17 10.02
DkA- Dello sand (0-1%) 61.20
DpA- Dinuba sandy loam (0-1%) 7.99
DrA- Dinuba sandy loam, slightly saline-alkali (0-1%) 315.60 GeA- Greenfield sandy loam, deep over hardpan, poorly drained (0- 1%) 142.71
GfA- Greenfield sandy loam, deep over hardpan (0-3%) 208.87 HgA- Hilmar loamy sand (0-3%) 1.72
HhA- Hilmar loamy sand loam, saline-alkali (0-3%) 75.79 SbA- San Joaquin loam (0-3%) 86.07
SbB- San Joaquin loam (3-8%) 3.16
SmA- Snelling sandy loam, imperfectly drained (0-1%) 127.76 SnA- Snelly sandy loam (0-3%) 39.38
FmA- Typic Duraqualfs, strongly saline-sodic (0-1%) 2.08 W- Water 44.40
Grand Total 17,894.73
SOURCE: NRCS CUSTOM SOIL SURVEY
As shown in Table 8.4-1, the majority of soils within the planning area consist of course and fine sands and sandy loams. Below is a brief description of the most prominent soils within the planning area.

Alamo Series. The Alamo series consists of moderately deep to hardpan, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed sources. Alamo soils are in basins and drainageways on floodplains and fan remnants. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent.