Atwater City Council
May 13, 2024

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-36 California, by 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS S-3-05, B-30-15, AND B-55-18
The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Safety Code Section 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

In 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order, B-30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.

In 2018, the Governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals. As discussed below, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

SB 350
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) added to the Public Utilities Code language that puts into statute the 2050 GHG reduction target identified in Executive Order S-3-05, albeit in the limited context of new state policies (i) increasing the overall share of electricity that must be produced through renewable energy sources and (ii) directing certain State agencies to begin planning for the widespread electrification of the California vehicle fleet. Section 740.12(a)(1)(D) of the Public Utilities Code states that “[t]he Legislature finds and declares [that] … [r]educing emissions of [GHGs] to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will require widespread transportation electrification.” Furthermore, Section 740.12(b) states that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in consultation with CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC), must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” AB 1279
In September 2022, the Legislature enacted AB 1279 (Stats. 2022, ch. 337). The bill declares the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. Additionally, the bill requires that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions be reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-37 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
Senate Bill X1-2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1) set aggressive statutory targets for renewable electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables by 2020.

This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities, investorowned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities were required to meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) SB 350, discussed below, increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd (a); see also Section 399.30, subd. (c)(2).) In 2018, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312) revised the above-described deadlines and targets so that the State will have to achieve a 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of by 2030) and achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.

BIOENERGY ACTION PLAN – EXECUTIVE ORDER #S-06-06
Executive Order #S-06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The executive order establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. The executive order also calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass electricity.

CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDERS S-3-05, S-20-06, AND B-30-15, ASSEMBLY BILL 32, AND SENATE BILL 32 On June 1, 2005, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050.

In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that the CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’s Climate Action Team.

In April 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15, which requires that there be a reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This intermediate target was codified into law by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which was signed into law on September 8, 2016.

CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN
In accordance with AB 32, the CARB developed the first Scoping Plan in 2008 to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. In May 2014, the CARB released and adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals and evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012. A newer version of the Scoping Plan was then adopted by the CARB in December 2017 (entitled California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan). Lastly,

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-38 the most recent version of the Scoping Plan was adopted by the CARB in November 2022 (entitled Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality) (2022 Scoping Plan), which was designed consistent with the long-term GHG reduction targets embedded in AB 1279. Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates in 2014, 2017, and 2022, State agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the Legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Building Standards (e.g., CALGreen and the 2022 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards), zero carbon electricity by 2045, and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and California Advanced Clean Cars)).

CALIFORNIA STRATEGY TO REDUCE PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE (AB 2076) In response to the requirements of AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and the CARB developed a strategy to reduce petroleum dependence in California. The strategy, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, was adopted by the CEC and CARB in 2003. The strategy recommends that California reduce on-road gasoline and diesel fuel demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand levels by 2020 and maintain that level for the foreseeable future; the Governor and Legislature work to establish national fuel economy standards that double the fuel efficiency of new cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs); and increase the use of non- petroleum fuels to 20 percent of on-road fuel consumption by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030.

CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAM AT CALTRANS
The California Department of Transportation, Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, prepared a Climate Action Program in response to new regulatory directives. The goal of the Climate Action Program is to promote clean and energy efficient transportation, and provide guidance for mainstreaming energy and climate change issues into business operations. The overall approach to lower fuel consumption and CO2 from transportation is twofold: (1) reduce congestion and improve efficiency of transportation systems through smart land use, operational improvements, and Intelligent Transportation Systems; and (2) institutionalize energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction measures and technology into planning, project development, operations, and maintenance of transportation facilities, fleets, buildings, and equipment.

The reasoning underlying the Climate Action Program is the conclusion that “the most effective approach to addressing GHG reduction, in the short-to-medium term, is strong technology policy and market mechanisms to encourage innovations. Rapid development and availability of alternative fuels and vehicles, increased efficiency in new cars and trucks (light and heavy duty), and super clean fuels are the most direct approach to reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles (emission performance standards and fuel or carbon performance standards).”
GOVERNOR’S LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD (EXECUTIVE ORDER #S-01-07) Executive Order #S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 through establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is incorporated into the State Alternative Fuels Plan and is one of the proposed discrete early action GHG reduction measures identified by the CARB pursuant to AB 32.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1757
AB 1757 (September 2022) requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to determine a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration, and for nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-39 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater emissions for future years 2030, 2038, and 2045. These targets are to be determined by no later than January 1, 2024, and are established to support the state’s goals to achieve carbon neutrality and foster climate adaptation and resilience.

SENATE BILLS 605 AND 1383
SB 605 (2014) required CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) required CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018. SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for methane and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon), and provides direction for reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, CARB adopted its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (Reduction Strategy) in March 2017. The Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide reduction of emissions of black carbon, methane, and fluorinated gases.

SENATE BILL 97
SB 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. OPR prepared its recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

SENATE BILL 375
SB 375 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728) (SB 375) was built on AB 32 (California’s 2006 climate change law). SB 375’s core provision is a requirement for regional transportation agencies to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in order to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The SCS is one component of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

The SCS outlines the region’s plan for combining transportation resources, such as roads and mass transit, with a realistic land use pattern, in order to meet a state target for reducing GHG emissions. The strategy must take into account the region’s housing needs, transportation demands, and protection of resource and farmlands.

Additionally, SB 375 modified the state’s Housing Element Law to achieve consistency between the land use pattern outlined in the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The legislation also substantially improved cities’ and counties’ accountability for carrying out their housing element plans.

Finally, SB 375 amended the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to ease the environmental review of developments that help reduce the growth of GHG emissions.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On January 1, 2010, the California Building Standards Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the United States to adopt a statewide green building standards code. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. The California

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-40 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated periodically. The standards were most recently updated in 2016, and have are effective as of January 1, 2017.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions because energy efficient buildings require less electricity and thus less consumption of fossil fuels, which emit GHGs. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The most recent Title 24 standards are the 2022 Title 24 standards. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Standards. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years. The CEC estimates that the 2022 Title 24 standards will reduce 10 million metric tons of GHG over 30 years. When compared to the 2019 Title 24 standards, the 2022 update focuses on:
encouraging electric heat pump technology and use; establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed; expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards; and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The purpose of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is to improve public health and safety and to promote the general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 1) planning and design; 2) energy efficiency; 3) water efficiency and conservation; 4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and 5) environmental quality. CalGreen, which became effective on January 1, 2011, instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial, low-rise residential uses, and State-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The mandatory standards require the following:
• 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to baseline levels; • 50 percent construction/demolition waste must be diverted from landfills; • Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; and • Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards.

The voluntary standards require the following:
• Tier I: 15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof. • Tier II: 30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, 30 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-41 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater The latest version of CalGreen is the 2022 CalGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2023.

Between 2010 and 2022, continuous updates and additions have been made to CALGreen, including water conservation and recycling, electric vehicle infrastructure and charging, and changes intended to eliminate conflicts with the California Energy Code, which is Part 6 of Title 24.

TITLE 20
CCR Title 20 requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. The CEC certifies an appliance based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the appliance meets the standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.

SENATE BILL 1
SB 1 (Murray) (August 2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the Public Resources Code, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for ratepayer-funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry. The goals included establishing solar energy systems as a viable mainstream option for homes and businesses within 10 years of adoption and placing solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, also termed “Go Solar California,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.”

SOLID WASTE
AB 939, AB 341, and AB 1826. In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000.

AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro]) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal (CalRecycle, 2012).

AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, effective 2016) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (i.e., food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-42 paper waste that is mixed in with food waste) depending on the amount of waste they generate per week.

This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses subject to the law decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or simply "Title 24," contains the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in California. The CBSC includes 12 parts: California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Residential Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Historical Building Code, California Fire Code, California Existing Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), and the California Reference Standards Code. Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction. The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.

The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design, Chapter 17 addresses structural tests and special inspections, and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Section 1610 provides structural design standards for foundation walls and retaining walls to ensure resistance to lateral soil loads. Section 1613 provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1704.7 requires special inspections for existing site soil conditions, fill placement and load-bearing requirements during the construction as specified in Table 1704.7 of this section. Sections 1704.8 through 1704.16 provide inspection and testing requirements for various foundation types, and construction material types. Section 1803.1.1.1 requires each city and county enact an ordinance which requires a preliminary soil report and that the report be based upon adequate test borings or excavations, of every subdivision, where a tentative and final map is required pursuant to Section 66426 of the Government Code. Section 1803.5.3 defines expansive soils and specifies that in areas likely to have expansive soil, the building official shall require soil tests to determine where such soils do exist. Section 1803.5.4 specifies that a subsurface soil investigation must be performed to determine whether the existing ground-water table is above or within 5 feet (1524 mm) below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished ground level adjacent to the foundation. Section 1803.5.8 provides specific standards where shallow foundations will bear on compacted fill material more than 12 inches (305 mm) in depth. Sections 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Section 1804 provides standards and requirements for excavation, grading, and fill. Sections 1808, 1809, and 1810 provide standards and requirements for the construction of varying foundations.

ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and Criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-43 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from surface faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist. Working definitions include:
• Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side;
• Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles; • Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and • Well-Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success.
“Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act.

SEISMIC HAZARDS MAPPING ACT
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically-induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act closely resemble those of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault-rupture hazards) and are outlined below:

The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.” • Cities and Counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans. • The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides guidelines for preparation of the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards. • Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale.

CALTRANS SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), which is an encyclopedia of new and currently practiced seismic design and analysis methodologies for the design of new bridges in California. The SDC adopts a performance-based approach specifying minimum levels of

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-44 structural system performance, component performance, analysis, and design practices for ordinary standard bridges. The SDC has been developed with input from the Caltrans Offices of Structure Design, Earthquake Engineering and Design Support, and Materials and Foundations. Memo 20-1 outlines the bridge category and classification, seismic performance criteria, seismic design philosophy and approach, seismic demands and capacities on structural components and seismic design practices that collectively make up Caltrans’ seismic design methodology.

Mineral and Energy Resources
SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975
The California Department of Conservation Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§ 2710), also known as SMARA, provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that permits the continued mining of minerals, as well as the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. The purpose of SMARA is to ensure that adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition and readily adaptable for alternative land uses. The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, wildlife, range and forage, as well as aesthetic enjoyment. Residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated. These goals are achieved through land use planning by allowing a jurisdiction to balance the economic benefits of resource reclamation with the need to provide other land uses.

If a use is proposed that might threaten the potential recovery of minerals from an area that has been classified mineral resource zone 2 (MRZ-2), SMARA would require the jurisdiction to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use, provide public notice of these reasons, and forward a copy of the statement to the State Geologist and the State Mining and Geology Board (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 2762). Lands classified MRZ-2 are areas that contain identified mineral resources.

DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
The California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) operates within the Department of Conservation. The DMG is responsible for assisting in the utilization of mineral deposits and the identification of geological hazards.

STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Similar to the DMG, the California Geological Survey is responsible for assisting in the identification and proper utilization of mineral deposits, as well as the identification of fault locations and other geological hazards.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
PRC Section 2762(d) and 2763 requires a lead agency to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract mineral resources either 1) in an area that has been designated in its general plan as having important minerals to be protected, or 2) if the use is proposed in an area with significant resources pursuant to Section 2761(b)(2) and the lead agency has not yet acted on the State’s designation. PRC Section 2763 requires that lead agency land use decisions involving areas designated as being of regional significance shall be in accordance with the lead agency's mineral resource management policies and shall also, in balancing mineral values against alternative land uses, consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole and not just their importance to the lead agency's area of jurisdiction.

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-45 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Hydrology and Water Quality

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to regulate state water quality and protect beneficial uses.

The State of California has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the California Building Standards Code, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Section 402(p) requires that stormwater associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and general permits). The SWRCB elected to adopt a Statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013- 001-DWQ-DWQ).

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
The Clean Water Act places the primary responsibility for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources with the states, although this does establish certain guidelines for the States to follow in developing their programs and allows the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw control from states with inadequate implementation mechanisms.

California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.

Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-46 (a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system. (2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region. (3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.)
The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti- degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act.

These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, the SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS
The California Division of Safety of Dams has established specific requirements with respect to dam operation. The California Government Code requires dam operators to prepare emergency plans for dam

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-47 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater failure and evacuation. The contingency plans are updated every two years and submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services for review and comment.

Incorporated cities are responsible for developing contingency plans for State-designated dams affecting incorporated areas. Merced County has the responsibility for developing emergency plans for Statedesignated dams affecting unincorporated areas within the county.

Scenic Resources
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – CALIFORNIA SCENIC HIGHWAY PROGRAM California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change, which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways.

The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code. A list of California's scenic highways and map showing their locations may be obtained from the Caltrans Scenic Highway Coordinators. If a route is not included on a list of highways eligible for scenic highway designation in the Streets and Highways Code Section 263 et seq., it must be added before it can be considered for official designation. A highway may be designated scenic depending on the extent of the natural landscape that can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

Agricultural Resources

WILLIAMSON ACT
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, was established based on numerous State legislative findings regarding the importance of agricultural lands in an urbanizing society. Policies emanating from those findings include those that discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and discourage discontinuous urban development patterns, which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents.

The Williamson Act authorizes each County to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment that is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a 10-year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner requests a non-renewal or the contract is cancelled. If the contract is cancelled the property owner is assessed a fee of up to 12.5 percent of the property value.

FARMLAND SECURITY ZONES
In 1998 the state legislature established the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program. FSZs are similar to Williamson Act contracts, in that the intention is to protect farmland from conversion. The main difference however, is that the FSZ must be designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The term of the contract is a minimum of 20 years. The property owners are offered an incentive of greater property tax reductions when compared to the Williamson Act contract tax incentives; the incentives were developed to encourage conservation of prime farmland through FSZs. The non-renewal and cancellation procedures are similar to those for Williamson Act contracts.

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-48 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 560643
This section of the Government Codes defines “Prime agricultural land” as follows:
• Prime agricultural land means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
o Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
o Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. o Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
o Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will re-turn during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
o Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years.

Cultural and Historic Resources

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are relatively like those described under the NHPA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on The National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,” “important,” listed on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and these effects must be addressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not be considered further in the planning process.

CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures,

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-49 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater the significance and nature of the cultural resources must be determined. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
• identify cultural resources,
• evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found, • evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and • develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected.

Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally like treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in a project’s area of potential affect, assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources, and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring combined with data recovery and/or avoidance.

STATE LAWS PERTAINING TO HUMAN REMAINS
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission.

Several sections of the California Public Resources Code protect paleontological resources.

Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
California Public Resources Code, Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur resulting from development on public lands.

The sections of the California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks afford protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State Park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State Park system and for State Park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).

SENATE BILL 18 (BURTON, CHAPTER 905, STATUTES 2004)
SB 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-50 protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).

ASSEMBLY BILL 52 (CHAPTER 532, STATUTES OF 2014)
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California, and included on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects.

AB 52 also requires that the consultation address project alternatives and mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to land use and socioeconomics.

FEDERAL
2008 USDA Farm Bill
The “Farm Bill” or the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, enacted into law in June 2008, set the agricultural program and funding priorities for the nation and covers everything from crop payments to growers to conservation programs and efforts aimed at creating more “green energy” from farm products.

STATE
Senate Bill 1000
Senate Bill (SB) 1000, also known as The Planning for Healthy Communities Act, is a comprehensive state legislation that requires California cities to include an Environmental Justice element or a set of environmental justice policies into their General Plans. The Bill was established as a state regulation on September 24, 2016, with the goal of improving the health of California cities and addressing pertinent issues of environmental justice related to community wellness. SB 1000 outlines strategies to promote the protection of sensitive land uses within the state, and simultaneously mandates that cities address the needs of disadvantaged communities. Through this bill, environmental justice is a mandated consideration in all city’s local land-use planning. SB 1000 was authored by Senator Connie Leyva and co-sponsored by the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) and the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ).

To aid city governments and planners in meeting the requirements of SB 1000, the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) and PlaceWorks Inc. collaborated to create a strategic toolkit. The SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit serves as a guide for key stakeholders by clarifying legislation requirements and providing tools, best practices, and resources to support these stakeholders as they begin to incorporate the law into local practice. To effectively meet the mandates of the bill, cities must formally identify disadvantaged communities (DACs) and work to reduce health risks specific to these communities by

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
A-51 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater outlining methods and programs within their plan that address the needs of DACs. Each General Plan must address the following topics in order to meet the requirements of SB 1000:
• Pollution Exposure and Air Quality
• Public Facilities
• Food Access
• Safe and Sanitary Homes
• Physical Activity
• “Civil” or Community Engagement
• Improvement and Programs That Address the Needs of Disadvantaged Communities Senate Bill 535
In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 535, directing that 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (established by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 52’s cap and trade program) go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.

Assembly Bill 1550
In 2016, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, which amended SB 535 to require all GGRF investments that benefit DACs to also be located within those communities. The law also requires that an additional 10 percent of the fund be dedicated to low-income households and communities, of which 5 percent is reserved for low-income households and communities living within a half-mile of a designated DAC.

Senate Bill 673
In 2015, the Legislature passed SB 673 directing the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to include criteria such as cumulative impact and neighborhood vulnerability when issuing or renewing facility permits. The law provides the DTSC with an opportunity to use tools such as CalEnviroScreen when making decisions on hazardous waste permitting.

Assembly Bill 523
Approved in 2017, AB 523, allocates at least 25 percent of the Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) funds administered by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to support technology demonstration and deployment projects located in and benefiting “disadvantaged communities,” and dedicates at least 10% of the fund to activities located in and benefiting “low-income” communities as defined by AB 1550.

Senate Bill 43
Approved in 2013, SB 43, establishes the Green Tariff Shared Renewables program, administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which enables utility customers to meet their energy generation needs through offsite generation of renewable energy projects. The program requires 100 MW of renewable energy projects to be sited in the top 20 percent of CalEnviroScreen CES scores based on each investor-owned utility (IOU) service territory.

Assembly Bill 693
Approved in 2015, AB 693 allocates $100 million per year for 10 years to fund solar installations on multifamily affordable housing. To qualify, a multifamily affordable housing property must be: (1) located

APPENDIX A: REGULATORY SETTING
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report A-52 in a DAC as defined by SB 535 using the most recent version of CalEnviroScreen CES; or (2) have at least 80% of tenants with incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income (AMI).

Assembly Bill 2722
Approved in 2016, AB 2722 requires the California Strategic Growth Council to award competitive grants to specified eligible entities for the development and implementation of neighborhood-level transformative climate community plans that include greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, as defined. AB 2722 created the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) program administered through the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The TCC is a GGRF-funded program that supports innovative, comprehensive, and community-led plans that reduce pollution and achieve multiple co-benefits at the neighborhood level.

Senate Bill 244
Approved in 2011, SB 244 requires cities and counties to address the infrastructure needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities in city and county general plans and LAFCo Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) and annexation decisions. SB 244 defines an unincorporated disadvantaged community as a place that: contains 10 or more dwelling units in close proximity to one another; is either within a city SOI, is an island within a city boundary, or is geographically isolated and has existed for more than 50 years; and has a median household income that is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. For cities and counties, SB 244 requires that before the due date for adoption of the next housing element after January 1, 2012, the general plan land use element must be updated to: identify unincorporated disadvantaged communities; analyze for each identified community the water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs; and identify financial funding alternatives for the extension of services to identified communities. For LAFCos, SB 244 generally prohibits approval of city annexations greater than 10 acres that are contiguous to a disadvantaged unincorporated community unless the city applies to annex the disadvantaged unincorporated community as well.

California Department of Transportation’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) the Active Transportation Program (ATP) aims to enhance public health and advance California’s climate goals by increasing safety and mobility for nonmotorized active transportation such as biking and walking. Twenty-five percent of program funds are set aside for ATP projects in “disadvantaged communities” (defined as census tracts within the top 25% of CalEnviroScreen (CES) scores along with several other options), while an additional 2% is set aside to fund active transportation planning in DACs.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-1 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

REFERENCES

1.0 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS
City of Atwater. Municipal Code. Title 17 Zoning. 2021.

Merced County. 2023. Parcel Data provided by the Merced County Assessor’s Office.

California Department of Finance. 2023. Table E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS, 2015-2019.

BAE Economic, Demographic, Real Estate, and Fiscal Existing Conditions Report Prepared for the City of Atwater September 22, 2023.

CoreLogic California Home Sale Activity.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021-2023.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 1990-2000, 2000-2010.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B25003.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2401.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503.

U.S. Census, 2000 Table DP4; 2006-2010 American Community Survey Table S2503; and 2015-2019 Table DP04.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-2

2.0 CIRCULATION
FEHR & PEERS. Atwater Existing Conditions Report – Transportation and Circulation. 2023.

City of Atwater. 2000. City of Atwater General Plan. July 2000.

Merced County Association of Governments. 2021. Final Regional transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy for Merced County. November 2021.

Merced County Association of Governments. 2022. Merced County 2022 Short-Range Transit Plan. August 2022.

Merced County Association of Governments. 2024. Regional Active Transportation Plan project webpage.

Accessed January 2024. https://fehrandpeers.mysocialpinpoint.com/merced-regional-activetransportation-plan/merced-regional-active-transportation-plan-home University of California, Berkeley SafeTREC. 2023. Transportation Injury Mapping System. January 2024.

County of Merced. 2024. Fly Castle Airport webpage. Accessed January 2024. http://www.flycastleairport.com/ga.html
County of Merced. 2024. Castle Commerce Center webpage. Accessed January 2024. https://www.countyofmerced.com/1245/Castle-Commerce-Center United States Census Bureau. 2024. Report SO801 Commuting Characteristics by Sex. January 2024.

United States Census Bureau. 2024. Report SO802 Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. January 2024.

3.0 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
bae urban economics. Existing Conditions Technical Report. bae urban economics. 2023.

4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Atwater Fire Department, 2023. Atwater Fire Department website. Available at:
https://www.atwater.org/departments/fire/
Atwater City Fire Department. 2022 Annual Review.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2021. Crime Data Explorer. Available at: https://crime-dataexplorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend.

Atwater Police Department. 2022. Annual Report.

Atwater Recreation Website, 2023. Available at: <https://www.atwater.org/category/recreation/> Atwater General Plan. Available At:
https://www.atwater.org/docs/generalplan/CHAPTER_2__LAND_USE__PUBLIC.PDF

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-3 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater City of Atwater five-year development impact fee report. Available At: https://www.atwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/Atwater-Five-Year-DIF-Report-17-18-through-21-22.pdf California Department of Education. 2023. DataQuest. Available: <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/>.

Merced County Library. 2023. Available: <https://www.countyofmerced.com/3876/Library>.

Dignity Health. 2023. < https://www.dignityhealth.org/> MFA Medical Group. 2023. <https://www.mfamg.com/>
Atwater Medical Group. 2023. <https://www.atwatermedical.com/> Castle Family Health Centers. 2023. <https://www.atwatermedical.com/>

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-4

5.0 UTILITIES
City of Atwater. 2023. www.atwater.org/services.
2015 Urban Water Management Plans, Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers, Final, March 2016.

City of Atwater 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Boyle Engineering Corp., July 2007.

Merced Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. November 2019. Available: https://mercedsgma.org/assets/pdf/gspsections/Merced-Subbasin-GSP-Draft-Report-Executive-Summary_2019-07-

30.pdf#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Groundwater%20Sustainability%20Plan%20is,Figur e%20ES-1%29%2C%20into%20sustainable%20groundwater%20management%20by%202040.

State of California. California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Water Use and Efficiency Statewide Integrated Water Management. Status of 2015 Urban Water Management Plans A report to the Legislature. Available: http://www.watereducation.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2015_uwmp_leg_report_-_final_-9-22-17.pdf State of California. California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Water Use and Efficiency Statewide Integrated Water Management. Water Use Efficiency Data (WUEdata). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs). Available:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/awmp_plans.

AECOM. June 2010. City of Atwater Sewer Master Plan.

AECOM. October 2018. City of Atwater Sewer Master Plan Update.

Blackwater Consulting Engineers. March 2022. City of Atwater 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Atwater. 2023. Atwater WWTP Flow Data 012020-062023. Accessed on October 19, 2023.

City of Atwater. 2023. www.atwater.org/services.
2015 Urban Water Management Plans, Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers, Final, March 2016.

City of Atwater 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Boyle Engineering Corp., July 2007.

Merced Integrated regional Water Management Authority. Merced Stormwater Resources Plan. Public Draft. February 2019.

City of Atwater, Post-Construction Standards Plan, 2014. Available:
https://www.atwater.org/docs/Post%20Construction%20Standards%20Plan.pdf Merced Local Agency Formation Commission. City of Atwater Municipal Service Review Update. December 13, 2017. Available:
<https://www.lafcomerced.org/pdfs/MunicipalServiceReviews/Atwater_MSR_Final_2017.pdf> CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Highway 59 Landfill (24-AA-0001).2019. Accessed < https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2908?siteID=1863>.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-5 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater CalRecycle. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion / Disposal Progress Report. 2017 – 2021. Accessed <
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCENTRAL/ANNUALREPORTING/DIVERSIONDISPOSAL>.

California Energy Commission. 2021 Power Content Label. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. January 2022. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3882
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2007. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Service Territory. https://www.pge.com/mybusiness/customerservice/otherrequests/treetrimming/territory/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2017. PG&E Renewable Energy Deliveries Grow; GHG-Free Portfolio Is Nearly 70 Percent. March 16, 2017.
https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20170316_pge_renewable _energy_deliveries_grow_ghg-free_portfolio_is_nearly_70_percent.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-6

6.0 HAZARDS AND SAFETY
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.

California Department of Water Resources. 2019 Dams within the Jurisdiction of the State of California.

Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Dams%20by%20County_Sept%202017.pdf.

California Department of Water Resources. 2020. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118-Update.

October 25, 2021.

California Department of Water Resources. Best Available Maps (BAM). Designated Floodways and Regulated Streams. Available: http://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/ California Office of Emergency Services. Available: CalOES. https://www.caloes.ca.gov CalWater, California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee. 2008. California Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD).

Merced County, CA Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021-2026. Available:
https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/oes/MercedCounty-MJHMP-2021-2016.pdf USEPA. 2019. My Waters Mapper. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/my-waters-mapper.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2010. 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FRAP Map. Available at:
https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/2446/fuel-rank-map.pdf
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Cal Fire - FRAP, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, adopted 11-7-2007. Map date: July 22, 2019.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Accessed May 28, 2021. Available at: <http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps >.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2022. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. Envirostor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Water Resources Control Board. 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. 2001. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

Merced County Airport Land Use Commission. Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. June 21, 2012.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-7 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater National Transportation Safety Board. Available at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx.

7.0 COMMUNITY NOISE
Saxelby Acoustics. City of Atwater General Plan Update – Noise Background Report, City of Atwater, California. 2023.

8.0 CONSERVATION
Barbour and Major. 1988. Terrestrial vegetation of California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
City of Atwater General Plan (2000). Available at: https://www.atwater.org/community-development/ Accessed August 2023.

County of Merced General Plan (2013) Available at: https://www.countyofmerced.com/100/General-Plan Accessed August 2023.

Hickman, James C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.

Holland, R.F., 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.

Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.

Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik, Eds. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.

San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2005. Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans.

C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.

California Air Resources Board. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm.

California Air Resources Board (2024) Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System or iADAM Air Pollution Summaries.

California Air Resources Board. 2024. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm
California Air Resources Board. 2024. Area Designations Map/State and National. Accessed on February 27, 2024. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-8 California Air Resources Board. 2023. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
California Air Resources Board. 2021. Emission Inventory. Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissionsinventory/aa784749921657a3127202959a402bfceebb4665 California Energy Commission. 2012. Energy Almanac. Retrieved August 2012, from http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html
California Energy Commission. 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2013 Edition.

Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data California Energy Commission. 2024. Energy Almanac. Available:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf International Energy Agency. 2018. FAQs: Oil. Available at: https://www.iea.org/about/faqs/oil/ National Resources Defense Council. 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-snowpack-and-drought-FS.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SQVAPCD) 2008, Climate Change Action Plan.

Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). 2022. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2024a. California State Energy Profile. Last updated April 20, 2023. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2024b. Independent Statistics and Analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions. Last updated September 22, 2023. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), Web Soils Survey 2023.

California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.

California Department of Conservation. 2023. Naturally Occurring Asbestos in California. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-hazards/asbestos California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/app/ Accessed August 2023

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-9 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater California Geological Survey. 1999, Revised 2002. Simplified Fault Activity Map of California. Compiled by Charles W. Jennings and George J. Saucedo.

California Geological Survey. 1992. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps. California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG) Special Publication 42, Revised 1992. State of California Department of Conservation.

California Geological Survey. 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps.

Prepared by T. Cao, W.A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C.J. Willis. California Geological Survey.

June 2003.

City of Atwater General Plan Chapter 5 Seismic and Public Safety Chapter. (2000). Available at:
https://www.atwater.org/community-development/ Accessed August 2023.

Ellsworth, W.L. 1990. “Earthquake History 1769-1989.” The San Andreas Fault System, California. R.E.

Wallace, ed. United States Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1515. Chapter 6.

Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Map Scale 1:750,000.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Accessed August 2023 United States Geological Survey Earthquake Catalog Available at:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ Accessed September 2023 California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.

California Natural Resources Agency (2012) updated mineral land classification map.

Merced County General Plan (2013) Available at: https://www.countyofmerced.com/100/General-Plan Accessed September 2023
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. 2018 Integrated Report Map. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2018_integrate d_report/2018IR_map.html Accessed September 2023.

City of Atwater General Plan (2000). Available at: https://www.atwater.org/community-development/ Accessed September 2023.

City of Atwater Urban Water Management Plan (2020) Available at: https://www.atwater.org/final-2020- urban-water-management-plan/ Accessed September 2023
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration San Joaquin River Basin.

Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-conservation/san-joaquin-riverbasin#san-joaquin-river Accessed September 2023 California Department of Transportation California State Scenic Highway Map (2018) Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways Accessed September 2023

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-10 City of Atwater General Plan (2000). Available at: https://www.atwater.org/community-development/ Accessed September 2023.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023.

Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Merced County Agricultural Commission. 2021. Merced County Agriculture (Crop) Report.

California Department of Conservation. FY 2015/2016. California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Status Report.

California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Important Farmlands Map. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Merced County, 2023.

Baumhoff, Martin A. 1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

Beardsley, Richard K. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 11). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.

Bennyhoff, James A. 1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 5. University of California, Davis.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer 1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell Beads.

University of California Archaeological Survey Report, 42:60-92. Berkeley.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1955 he Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.

Davis, James T. 1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.

Fredrickson, David A. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gudde, Erwin 1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hillman, Raymond W. and Leonard A. Covello 1985 Cities & Towns of San Joaquin County Since 1847.

Panorama West Books, Fresno.

Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe. 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth Edition), revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1953 Handbook of the California Indians. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley.

Latta, F. F. 1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga. 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-11 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves. 1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.

Sacramento.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Pyron, Jennifer 2010. Images of America: Lathrop. Arcadia Publishing.

Ragir, Sonia. 1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. University of California Research Contributions 15. Berkeley.

Schulz, Peter D. 1981 Osteoarchaeology and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Central California.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson. 1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413. Berkeley.

Smith, Wallace. 1960 Garden of the Sun. Eighth edition. Original publication in 1939, privately printed.

Thompson & West. 1879 History of San Joaquin County with Illustrations. Thompson & West, Publishers.

Reprinted in 1968 by Howell-North Books, Berkeley.

Tinkham, George H. 1923 History of San Joaquin County, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-12

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
California Department of Parks and Recreation Park Access Tool. Available at:
https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess/ Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. SCORP 2021. Available at:
https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/scorp/2021 Accessed August 2023.

California Environmental Justice Alliance. SB1000 Toolkit: Planning for Healthy Communities. Available at:
https://caleja.org/2017/09/sb-1000-toolkit-release/ Accessed August 2023 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) Available at: https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/our-work/californiahealth-interview-survey-chis Accessed August 2023 California Department of Education. Physical Fitness Testing Results. Available at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ Accessed August 2023
California Secretary of State Voter Registration Statistics. Available at:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/voter-registration-statistics Accessed August 2023.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health https://www.cdc.gov/nceh
City of Atwater 5th Cycle Housing Element 2014-2023. Available at https://www.atwater.org/city-ofatwater-2014-2023-5th-cycle-housing-element/ Accessed August 2023 City of Atwater. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://www.atwater.org/final-2020- urban-water-management-plan/ Accessed August 2023.

Elsheikh, E.; Barhoum N. (2013). Structural Racialization and Food Insecurity in the United States. Prepared for the U.N. Human Rights Committee on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Available at: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/structural-racialization-food-insecurity-us Accessed August 2023
Feeding America Map the Meal Gap (2021). Available at
https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2021/overall/california Accessed August 2023 Merced County Community Health Needs Assessment. 2022 Community Available At:
https://www.dignityhealth.org/content/dam/dignity-health/pdfs/chna/2022-chna/merced-mercymedical-center-chna-22.pdf Merced County Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan 2018. Available at:
https://www.mcagov.org/374/Active-Transportation Accessed August 2023 Merced County Registrar of Voters. Election Statistics. Available at:
https://www.countyofmerced.com/3878/Elections Accessed August 2023.

Merced County The Bus Fare Fees. Available at: https://www.mercedthebus.com/131/Fare-Fees Accessed August 2023.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
B-13 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2018. Available at:
https://www.mercedirwmp.org/documents.html Accessed August 2023.

Merced SGMA. Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan 2022. Available at:
http://mercedsgma.org/resources Accessed August 2023
United States Department of Agriculture. Food Access Research Atlas. Available at:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/ Accessed August 2023 World Health Organization (WHO). Water Sanitation and Hygiene. What are the health risks related to overcrowding?”. Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-andhealth/water-sanitation-and-health/environmental-health-in-emergencies/humanitarianemergencies.

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
City of Atwater | General Plan Existing Conditions Report B-14 Page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX C: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY TABLE
C-1 General Plan Existing Conditions Report | City of Atwater

Exhibit CAS 7A
Detailed General Plan Land Uses:

County of Merced
·|}þ99
Sante Fe Dr
UV59
13 31
B2
B1
A
A
B1
B2
D
D
C
D
59 G
99 140
R
PALM

SHAFFER
FOX
BELL
I
V
WINTON

OAKDALE
K
WALNUT
ASHBY

BELLEVUE
A
HULL
ARENA
M

MERCEDES
T
SUNSET
BUHACH
O
P
B
MEADOW
U
23RD
16TH
S
JONES
Q
ROSE

LIBERTY
ALMOND
FISHER
20TH

YOSEMITE

ATWATER
VINE
GURR
MCKEE

ELLIOTT
TAHOE

BERT CRANE
OLIVE
25TH
19TH
YOUD
SHAW

EUCALYPTUS
H
DONNA

APPLEGATE

LONGVIEW
18TH

PRINCETON

SNELLING

ATWATER JORDAN
GOLF
MAIN
AMMO
ALVES
FIR
FIRST
N

LANDRAM

CRESSEY
GROVE

STATION

BELCHER
21ST
C

BROADWAY

WESTSIDE

BRADBURY
27TH
LOBO

STEINBERG

QUINLEY
22ND

NORTH BEAR CREEK

FRUITLAND

SANTA FE

CENTRAL

SOUTHERN PACIFIC

PARSONS
GAMBLE

WHITE CRANE
HIGH
LEE
X
CEDAR

OLD LAKE

ALEXANDER

FRANKLIN

PERIMETER

AMSTERDAM
15TH
MORAN

GERTRUDE

THORNTON
ELK

BUENA VISTA
LADINO
WEST

HARDSTAND

MULBERRY
LUPIN

FLEMMING
STEIN

GIANNINI

JUNIPER
F
HERROD

BEACHWOOD
NEVADA

AVENUE ONE
APRON
DRAKE

CYPRESS
E

CAMELLIA

GARDNER

LA PALOMA

HOSPITAL

TRINDADE
PARK

EL CAPITAN

CARDELLA
UTAH

COMMERCE
FERN
COOPER
FAY
GLEN

EL PORTAL

FARMLAND

WALLACE
TEAK
BEA

BROOKDALE

PAULSON

CALIFORNIA
DUNN

EL REDONDO
HARVEY
24TH

AUGUSTA

SAN JOSE

FAIRWAY
SWAN

AVENUE TWO
CONVOY
W

ZEPPELIN
13TH

REDWOOD

LOUGHBOROUGH
6TH
CASTLE
FIFTH

BANCROFT

DAN WARD

RAILROAD
JOSIE

BEDFORD

CLINTON

COLUMBIA
BREEZE

ORCHARD PARK
AUSTIN
ELM

FEDERAL
4TH

IVY CHESTNUT
ROGERS

CORDOVA

SHUTTLE
LEHIGH

OLIVEWOOD

RAMBLER
OREGON
HAILEY
KENNEY
CREST
26TH

LUCILLE
CENTER

CAMPODONICO
SYDNEY
NEVES
ARDEN
GREEN
D

MANZANITA
JULIA
VANN

HILLCREST

MEADOWS
DEAN

OLEANDER
DAKOTA
CAMPUS
2ND

PETTINOTTI

LIVINGSTON CRESSEY
ESSEX

INDUSTRY AIR PARK

CRAWFORD
BRONCO
SUSIE

MASSASSO
ORION

SAN AUGUSTINE

AVIATOR

MAGNOLIA
GIBBS

PACIFIC
9TH
SILVA

SANDPIPER
ERIE
WOLF
CLUB
JAKE
EPPS
MONACO

ON RAMP
QUAIL
PAIGE
MAPLE

STRATFORD

MITCHELL

RAINBOW

OFF RAMP

FORTUNA
DORIS
MIDGE

VICTORIA
DEREK
KIM

DE ANZA
HARBOR

CASCADE
PALORA
TOKAY
NOAH
THIRD

PINEDALE
RIDGE
DART

SILVERADO
ARLENE

SARASOTA
PEAR

SARATOGA

PLYMOUTH

QUEEN ELIZABETH

BRADSHAW

JETLIFT
VALLEY
MILES
BOBBIE
BRANAM

COLLINS
LACY

PRIVATE
SIXTH
JUDY
RENE

CALGARY
CARON
ONYX

GREEN SANDS

CHANNEL

DESTINY
TUPELO
FORIST

SUGARPLUM

AUTO CENTER
CANAL
LEA
BEALS
DELLA
CINDY

BARBERA
BULLER
AVOCET
TINA

EMERALD

LINDSEY

AVIGNON

VILLAGE WOODS
MERCY

SOLSTICE
PADRE

TRINIDADE
SOHAN

AHWAHNEE

ALBERTA
JULIE

BRIDGET

DOROTHY

LAKE VIEW
MYRTLE

LOS ALTOS

CHEYENNE
LESLIE

LANGTRY
DUBLIN

MERRILL

STONYBROOK
KADOTA
CLOVER
KELSO
AUPS
NOME
LUKE

SUNCREST

SUNDANCE

HAPPY VALLEY

CHARDONNAY
CARLEN
MUIR

NORTH BUTTE

SAGEWOOD
TANKER
SANDY
CRAIG

JACKSON

SHERWOOD

MIRROR LAKE
KNOLL
LEES

SANTIAGO
GARY
COUNTY
KANSAS
RODS

SUMMERGLEN
DUKE
HOLLY
F

CARDELLA
24TH
DUNN

CENTRAL
U
Q
SWAN
IVY
BUHACH
21ST
99 MORAN N
P

CRESSEY
26TH

BELCHER
T
H
BUHACH

BELLEVUE
13TH
N
MORAN
OLIVE

CRESSEY
VINE
99 W
OLIVE
CANAL

CARDELLA
ARENA
GURR

EUCALYPTUS
OLIVE
Q
OLIVE
I
GROVE
PALM
P
W

PERIMETER

ARENA WHITE CRANE
MORAN

LIBERTY

FRANKLIN

EUCALYPTUS
C
FIRST
M
VINE

AVENUE TWO
BUHACH
RIDGE
YOUD

SANTA FE

CENTRAL
ELM

FRUITLAND
O

BELLEVUE
27TH
WEST
HAILEY
OLIVE
DONNA
ROSE
WINTON

FRANKLIN - BEACHWOOD

CRESSEY
0 3,000 6,000 12,000
Feet
´ Data Sources: General Plan designations from Merced County, 2011. Basemap details from Merced County, 2011. Runway
alignment from FAA Airport Master Record, 2010.

City of Merced
City of
Atwater
Unincorporated
Merced County
Merced Regional
Airport Influence Area
BACKGROUND DATA: CASTLE AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER 4
Castle Airport
(Adopted June 21, 2012)
Land Use Compatibility Plan
Notes: 1See Chapter 3, Map CAS 1, Compatibility Policy Map.

Legend
FAA Height Notification Surface
Roads
City Limits
Atwater Sphere of Influence
Merced Sphere of Influence
Atwater General Plan Planning Area
City of Merced General Plan Planning Area
Community Boundaries
Runway
Urban Designations
Castle
Residential
Commercial
Visitor Commercial
Business Park
Aviation/Manufacturing
Public Use
Open Space
Franklin Beachwood Community Plan
Agricultural-Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Industrial
Institutional/Public
Recreational
Residential Reserve
Winton Community Plan
Agricultural-Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Residential
Commercial Transition
Industrial
Institutional/Public
Recreational
Residential Reserve
City Planning Areas
Agricultural
Agricultural-Residential
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Residential
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Heavy Commercial
Highway Interchange Center
Industrial
Public/Government
Public Use
Recreational
Park/Open Space/Recreational
Regional Community
Industrial Reserve
Urban Reserve
Urban Expansion Area
Rural Residential Centers
Agricultural
Agricultural-Residential
Residential
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Industrial
Institutional/Public
Public Use
Isolated Urban Designations
Residential
Industrial
Rural Designations
Agricultural
Foothill Pasture
Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones1
Airport Influence Area

GENERAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Table 2A
Basic Compatibility Criteria
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 2–39 Land Use Category 1 Compatibility Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses 2  Land Use Acceptability Legend for Green, Yellow, and Red provided on last page of this table A B1 B2 C D  Intensity criteria apply to all nonresidential uses including ones shown as “Normally Compatible” (green)  Nonresidential development must satisfy both sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (see Policy 5.2.5)
 Conditions listed below apply to uses listed as
“Conditional” (yellow) for a particular zone
 Numbers in Conditional cells are Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits (see Policy 5.2.9 for applicability)
 Up to 10% of total floor area may be devoted to an
ancillary use (see Policy 3.1.2(d))
Max. Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre)3
Max. Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
10 10
50 100
100
300
200
800
no
limit
Open Land Requirement
(see Policy 5.2.12)
all
remaining
30% 30% 15%
no
requirement
General Characteristics
Any use having more than 3 habitable floors
Any use having structures or trees up to 100 feet in
height
B1: Ensure airspace obstruction does not occur (see
Airspace Protection Plans)
Any use having structures or trees more than 100
feet in height
B1, B2, C, D: Ensure airspace obstruction does not
occur(see Airspace Protection Plans)
Any use having the potential to cause an increase in
the attraction of birds or other wildlife
B1, B2, C, D: Mitigation must be provided consistent
with FAA rules and regulations 4
Any use creating visual or electronic hazards to
flight 5
Natural Land Areas: woods, brush lands, desert A: Objects above runway elevation not allowed in OFA 6 B: Vegetation must be clear of airspace surfaces
Water: flood plains, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs A: Objects above runway elevation not allowed in OFA 6 All: Avoid new features that attract more birds
Agriculture (except residences and livestock):
crops, orchards, vineyards, pasture, range land
A: Not allowed in OFA 6
A, B1, B2, C: ensure airspace obstruction does not
occur (see Airspace Protection Plans)
All: Avoid crops that attract birds
Livestock Uses: feed lots, stockyards, breeding,
fish hatcheries, horse stables
B1, B2, C: Avoid uses that attract birds
B1, B2, C: Exercise caution with uses involving noisesensitive animals 7 Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities (capacity
≥1,000 people): spectator-oriented outdoor
stadiums, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, zoos
D: Allowed only if alternative site outside zone would
not serve intended function
Group Recreation (limited spectator stands):
athletic fields, water recreation facilities, picnic
areas
B2, C: Avoid if intended for noise-sensitive uses;
ensure intensity criteria met
Small/Non-Group Recreation: golf courses, tennis
courts, shooting ranges
B1, B2, C: Avoid if intended for noise-sensitive uses;
ensure intensity criteria met
Local Parks: children-oriented neighborhood parks,
playgrounds
B2, C: Allowed only if alternative site outside zone
would not serve intended function, ensure intensity
criteria met
Camping: campgrounds, recreational vehicle/
motor home parks
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
Cemeteries (except chapels)

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL POLICIES
Table 2A, continued
2–40 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) Land Use Category 1 Compatibility Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses 2  Land Use Acceptability Legend for Green, Yellow, and Red provided on last page of this table A B1 B2 C D  Intensity criteria apply to all nonresidential uses including ones shown as “Normally Compatible” (green)  Nonresidential development must satisfy both sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (see Policy 5.2.5)
 Conditions listed below apply to uses listed as
“Conditional” (yellow) for a particular zone
 Numbers in Conditional cells are Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits (see Policy 5.2.9 for applicability)
 Up to 10% of total floor area may be devoted to an
ancillary use (see Policy 3.1.2(d))
Max. Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre)3
Max. Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
10 10
50 100
100
300
200
800
no
limit
Open Land Requirement
(see Policy 5.2.12)
all
remaining
30% 30% 15%
no
requirement
Residential and Lodging Uses
Single-Family Residential: individual dwellings,
townhouses, mobile homes, bed & breakfast inns
B1: B2: Portions of parcel including accessory
buildings can be in zone; dwelling must be outside
of zone
B1: Max. 1 d.u./5 acres
B2: Max. 1 d.u./acre
C: Max. 8 d.u./acre
B1, B2: CNEL 45 dB max. interior noise level
Multi-Family Residential C: Max. 8 d.u./acre
Long-Term Lodging (>30 nights): extended-stay
hotels, dormitories
C: Ensure intensity criteria met
Short-Term Lodging (≤30 nights): hotels, motels,
other transient lodging (except conference/assembly facilities) [approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.46 0.92
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
B2: CNEL 45 dB max. interior noise level
Congregate Care: retirement homes, assisted living,
nursing homes, intermediate care facilities
C: Ensure intensity criteria met
Educational and Institutional Uses
Family day care homes (≤14 children) B2, C: Only small family care homes (≤8 children) as permitted by state law 8
B2: CNEL 45 dB max. interior noise level
Children’s Schools: K-12, day care centers (>14
children); school libraries
B2, C: Limited expansion on existing sites; no new
sites (see Policy 5.5.2(c)(2))
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level
Adult Education classroom space: adult schools,
colleges, universities
[approx. 40 s.f./person]

0.09 0.18
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level
Community Libraries
[approx. 100 s.f./person]
C: Ensure intensity criteria met
Indoor Major Assembly Facilities (capacity ≥1,000
people): auditoriums, conference centers, concert
halls, indoor arenas
Indoor Large Assembly Facilities (capacity 300 to
999 people): movie theaters, places of worship,
cemetery chapels, mortuaries
[approx. 15 s.f./person]

0.07 C: Ensure intensity criteria met
Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums, club houses,
athletic clubs, dance studios
[approx. 60 s.f./person]

0.14 0.28
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
In-Patient Medical: hospitals, mental hospitals C: No new sites or land acquisition; replacement/ expansion of existing facilities limited to existing size

GENERAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Table 2A, continued
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 2–41 Land Use Category 1 Compatibility Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses 2  Land Use Acceptability Legend for Green, Yellow, and Red provided on last page of this table A B1 B2 C D  Intensity criteria apply to all nonresidential uses including ones shown as “Normally Compatible” (green)  Nonresidential development must satisfy both sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (see Policy 5.2.5)
 Conditions listed below apply to uses listed as
“Conditional” (yellow) for a particular zone
 Numbers in Conditional cells are Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits (see Policy 5.2.9 for applicability)
 Up to 10% of total floor area may be devoted to an
ancillary use (see Policy 3.1.2(d))
Max. Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre)3
Max. Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
10 10
50 100
100
300
200
800
no
limit
Open Land Requirement
(see Policy 5.2.12)
all
remaining
30% 30% 15%
no
requirement
Out-Patient Medical: health care centers, clinics
[approx. 240 s.f./person] 0.55 1.10 B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria metB2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level Penal Institutions: prisons, reformatories C: Ensure intensity criteria met Public Safety Facilities: police, fire stations B1: Allowed only if airport serving B2: Allowed only if alternative site outside zone would not serve intended public function
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Commercial, Office, and Service Uses
Major Retail: regional shopping centers, ‘big box’
retail
[approx. 110 s.f./person]

0.51 C: Ensure intensity criteria met; capacity <1,000
people per bldg; evaluate eating/drinking areas
separately if >10% of total floor area
Local Retail: community/neighborhood shopping
centers, grocery stores
[approx. 170 s.f./person] 0.39 0.78
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met; capacity <150
people per bldg; evaluate eating/drinking areas
separately if >10% of total floor area
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Eating/Drinking Establishments: restaurants, fastfood dining, bars [approx. 60 s.f./person] 0.14 0.28
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met; capacity <500
people per bldg
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Limited Retail/Wholesale: furniture, automobiles,
heavy equipment, lumber yards, nurseries
[approx. 250 s.f./person] 0.29 0.57 1.15
B1: Design site to place parking inside and bldgs
outside of zone if possible
B1, B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office areas
Offices: professional services, doctors, finance,
civic; radio, television & recording studios, office
space related to other listed uses
[approx. 215 s.f./person]

0.25 0.49 0.99
B1, B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level
Personal & Miscellaneous Services: barbers, car
washes, print shops
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.46 0.92
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Fueling Facilities: gas stations, trucking &
transportation terminals
B1: All fuel storage placed underground
B1, B2: Ensure intensity criteria met
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office areas

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL POLICIES
Table 2A, continued
2–42 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) Land Use Category 1 Compatibility Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses 2  Land Use Acceptability Legend for Green, Yellow, and Red provided on last page of this table A B1 B2 C D  Intensity criteria apply to all nonresidential uses including ones shown as “Normally Compatible” (green)  Nonresidential development must satisfy both sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (see Policy 5.2.5)
 Conditions listed below apply to uses listed as
“Conditional” (yellow) for a particular zone
 Numbers in Conditional cells are Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits (see Policy 5.2.9 for applicability)
 Up to 10% of total floor area may be devoted to an
ancillary use (see Policy 3.1.2(d))
Max. Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre)3
Max. Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
10 10
50 100
100
300
200
800
no
limit
Open Land Requirement
(see Policy 5.2.12)
all
remaining
30% 30% 15%
no
requirement
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Storage Uses
Hazardous Materials Production: oil refineries,
chemical plants
Heavy Industrial C, D: Avoid bulk storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting
agencies to evaluate possible need for special
measures to minimize hazards if struck by aircraft
Light Industrial, High Intensity: food products
preparation, electronic equipment
[approx. 200 s.f./person]

0.46 0.92
B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met; avoid bulk storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive, corrosive, or
toxic) materials; permitting agencies to evaluate
possible need for special measures to minimize
hazards if struck by aircraft
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Light Industrial, Low Intensity: machine shops,
wood products, auto repair
[approx. 350 s.f./person]

0.40 0.80
B1, B2: Ensure intensity criteria are met; avoid bulk
storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive,
corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting agencies to
evaluate possible need for special measures to
minimize hazards if struck by aircraft
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office areas
Research & Development
[approx. 300 s.f./person]

0.34 0.69 1.38
B1, B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria are met; avoid bulk storage of hazardous (flammable, explosive,
corrosive, or toxic) materials; permitting agencies to
evaluate possible need for special measures to
minimize hazards if struck by aircraft
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office areas
Indoor Storage: wholesale sales, warehouses,
mini/other indoor storage, barns, greenhouses
[approx. 1,000 s.f./person]

1.14 B1: Ensure intensity criteria are met
B1, B2 (green): CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level
for office areas
Outdoor Storage: public works yards, automobile
dismantling
Mining & Extraction
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Airport Terminals: airline, general aviation
Rail & Bus Stations B1, B2: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended public function; ensure intensity
criteria met
B1, B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office areas

GENERAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Table 2A, continued
Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) 2–43 Land Use Category 1 Compatibility Zones Criteria for Conditional Uses 2  Land Use Acceptability Legend for Green, Yellow, and Red provided on last page of this table A B1 B2 C D  Intensity criteria apply to all nonresidential uses including ones shown as “Normally Compatible” (green)  Nonresidential development must satisfy both sitewide and single-acre intensity limits (see Policy 5.2.5)
 Conditions listed below apply to uses listed as
“Conditional” (yellow) for a particular zone
 Numbers in Conditional cells are Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits (see Policy 5.2.9 for applicability)
 Up to 10% of total floor area may be devoted to an
ancillary use (see Policy 3.1.2(d))
Max. Sitewide Average Intensity (people/acre)3
Max. Single-Acre Intensity (people/acre)
applicable to all nonresidential development
10 10
50 100
100
300
200
800
no
limit
Open Land Requirement
(see Policy 5.2.12)
all
remaining
30% 30% 15%
no
requirement
Transportation Routes: road & rail rights-of-way,
bus stops
A: Not allowed in OFA 6; avoid road intersections if
traffic congestion occurs
Auto Parking: surface lots, structures A: Not allowed in OFA 2; allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended function
Communications Facilities: emergency
communications, broadcast & cell towers
B2, C: Allowed only if site outside zone would not
serve intended public function
B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level for office
areas
Power Plants D: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended public function
Electrical Substations B2, C: Allowed only if site outside zone would not serve intended public function
Wastewater Facilities: treatment, disposal B1, B2: Avoid new features that may attract birds Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: landfill, incineration Solid Waste Transfer Facilities, Recycle Centers D: Avoid new features that may attract birds

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL POLICIES
Table 2A, continued
2–44 Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted June 21, 2012) Land Use Acceptability Interpretation/Comments
Normally
Compatible
Normal examples of the use are compatible with noise, safety, and airspace protection criteria. Atypical examples may require review to ensure compliance with usage intensity, lot coverage, and height limit criteria.

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.

Incompatible Use should not be permitted under any circumstances.

Notes
1 Land uses not specifically listed shall be evaluated using the criteria for similar uses. Assumed occupancy levels (square feet / person) cited for many listed uses can be used as a factor in determining the appropriate land use category for unlisted uses or atypical examples of a use. Multiple land use categories and compatibility criteria may apply to a project. 2 Dedication of an avigation easement is required as a condition for approval of any proposed development, except ministerial actions associated with modification of existing single-family residences, situated on a site that lies completely or partially within any of the following: within Compatibility Zones A or B1; or, as defined by FAR Part 77 and shown on the airport’s Airspace Protection Map in Chapter 3, an area (1) within the primary surface, (2) beneath the approach or transitional surfaces to where the latter surfaces intersect with the horizontal surface or (3) situated at an elevation that penetrates or is less than 35 feet below any other airspace protection surface.

Recorded overflight notification is required for all residential development in the remainder of the airport influence area. See Policies 5.4.4 and 5.5.6.
3 Usage intensity calculations shall include all people (e.g., employees, customers/visitors) who may be on the property at any single point in time, whether indoors or outdoors. Local agencies may make exceptions for rare special events (e.g., an air show at the airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be taken as appropriate. See Policy 5.2.9 and

5.5.4. 4
No proposed use shall be allowed that would create an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites on or Near Airports, and Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight. 5 Specific characteristics to be avoided include: sources of glare (such as from mirrored or other highly reflective structures or building features) or bright lights (including search lights and laser light displays); distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights; sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilots’ vision; sources of steam or other emissions that cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air; and sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation. See Policy 5.3.5. 6 Object Free Area (OFA): Shown on the Airport Layout Plan (see Chapter 3) and the Compatibility Plan in this chapter; dimensions are established by FAA airport design standards for the runway. 7 This caution is directed at the project proponent and is not intended to preclude approval of the project. 8 Small family day care homes provide family day care for eight or fewer children (Health and Safety Code Section 1596.78).

bae urban economics
Economic, Demographic, Real Estate, and Fiscal Existing Conditions Report Prepared for the City of Atwater
September 22, 2023

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 4 Demographic Characteristics.......................................................................................................4 Economic Conditions ....................................................................................................................5 Real Estate Market Conditions ....................................................................................................9 Fiscal Conditions........................................................................................................................ 11 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................... 4 Population and Household Trends ........................................................................................... 12 Age Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 13 Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 14 Educational Attainment............................................................................................................. 15 Household Composition ............................................................................................................ 16 Household and Per Capita Income........................................................................................... 17 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 19 Gross Domestic Product............................................................................................................ 19 Unemployment Trends .............................................................................................................. 20 Jobs by Industry.......................................................................................................................... 22 Worker Earnings......................................................................................................................... 23 Resident Employment by Industry ............................................................................................ 25 Resident Employment by Occupation....................................................................................... 25 Major Employers in Merced County.......................................................................................... 26 Jobs/Employed Residents Balance and Commute Flows....................................................... 27 Taxable Sales Trends................................................................................................................. 27 Castle Commerce Center .......................................................................................................... 30 REAL ESTATE MARKET CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 31 Residential Market Overview .................................................................................................... 31 Retail Market Overview.............................................................................................................. 37 Office Real Estate Market Overview ......................................................................................... 38

Industrial Real Estate Market Overview................................................................................... 39 FISCAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 41 General Fund Balance............................................................................................................... 41 General Fund Revenues............................................................................................................ 42 General Fund Expenditures....................................................................................................... 46 Fiscal Considerations ................................................................................................................ 46 PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ...................................................... 48 Future Population Growth ......................................................................................................... 48 Future Job Growth...................................................................................................................... 49

List of Tables
Table 1: Population and Household Trends, 2010, 2020, and 2023.........................................13 Table 2: Age Distribution, 2010 and 2020....................................................................................14 Table 3: Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2020 ...............................................................................15 Table 4: Educational Attainment, 2021 Five-Year Sample Data .................................................16 Table 5: Household Type, 2010 and 2020 ...................................................................................17 Table 6: Household and Per Capita Income, 2021.......................................................................18 Table 7: Gross Domestic Product by Industry in 2021, Merced County & California ................20 Table 8: Average Annual Pay for Wage and Salary Workers, 2022 ............................................23 Table 9: Jobs by Industry, Atwater, Merced California, and California, 2017-2022...................24 Table 10: Employed Residents by Industry...................................................................................25 Table 11: Employed Residents by Occupation, 2017-2021 ........................................................26 Table 12: Major Employers, Merced County, 2022 .....................................................................27 Table 13: Commute Flows, 2017-2021.........................................................................................27 Table 14: Taxable Sales by Category, 2022..................................................................................29 Table 15: Units in Structure, 2023 ................................................................................................31 Table 16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure, 2010 and 2020 ..................................................32 Table 17: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2010 and 2020.........................................34 Table 18: Vacancy Rate by Tenure, 2010 and 2020...................................................................35 Table 19: Characteristics of Home Sales by Type, City of Atwater, June 2022 through April 2023.................................................................................................................................................36 Table 20: CoStar Multifamily Residential Overview, 2Q 2023.....................................................37 Table 21: CoStar Retail Market Overview, Q2 2023.....................................................................38 Table 22: CoStar Office Market Overview, Q4 2022.....................................................................39 Table 23: Industrial Market Overview, Q3 2023...........................................................................40 Table 24: General Fund Revenue – Taxes, FY 2023-24 .............................................................43 Table 25: Population and Employment Projections.....................................................................49 Table 26: Employment by Industry Projections ............................................................................50

List of Figures
Figure 1: City of Atwater.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: City of Atwater and Merced County .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 2010-2022......................................................21 Figure 4: Monthly Unemployment Rates, 2015- July 2023.........................................................22 Figure 5: Housing Units by Year Built, 2017-2021 Five-Year Sample Data................................33 Figure 6: General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Trends, FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24..............41 Figure 7: General Fund Revenue Sources, FY 2023-24...............................................................42 Figure 8: Property Tax Allocation Factors, City of Atwater ............................................................45 Figure 9: General Fund Expenditure Sources, FY 2023-24..........................................................46

1 INTRODUCTION
In support of the City of Atwater General Plan Update, BAE Urban Economics (BAE) has prepared this Demographic and Economics Existing Conditions Report to provide overviews of existing conditions and trends for the city’s demographic makeup, the local and regional economy, the local real estate market for housing and other major land uses, and the City’s fiscal status as indicated by its General Fund. In particular, the information contained in this report will help to inform preparation of the updated Land Use and Economic Development Element.

The City of Atwater (see Figure 1) is located in Merced County, in the heart of California’s Central Valley. The regional context is shown in Figure 2. Comparative data for the county and the state are provided throughout the report to provide context for conditions and trends in Atwater itself.

2 Figure 1: City of Atwater
Sources: Merced County GIS; Esri; BAE, 2023.

3 Figure 2: City of Atwater and Merced County
Sources: Merced County GIS; Esri; BAE, 2023.

4 SUMMARY FINDINGS
The following sections summarize key findings of the analysis in this report.

Demographic Characteristics

Population and Household Trends
The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates Atwater at 31,418 persons and 10,136 households as of 2023. By population, Atwater is the third largest of the six incorporated cities in Merced County, ranking behind Merced and Los Banos. Merced County is the 23rd most populous of California’s 58 counties. These rankings have been relatively unchanged since 2000, as the city, the county, and the state have all shown population growth. Since 2020 the number of city residents has been relatively unchanged; however, the number of households continued to grow, leading to a decline in average household size.

Future Population Growth
Overall, Atwater and Merced County have shown population and household growth since 2010; however, as mentioned above, since 2020, estimates indicate that population growth has stalled for Atwater, but the county continues to see population growth. The most recent projections, which incorporated 2020 Census data, show more limited growth or even possible declines in population statewide. In contrast, Merced County’s population is projected to increase even as the state population overall stagnates. Assuming Atwater mirrors county trends and maintains a constant percentage of the countywide population as estimated by DOF, Atwater can be expected to grow gradually, from 31,751 in 2020 to approximately 37,000 persons in 2050, or about a 17 percent increase, with a commensurate increase in demand for housing.

Age Characteristics
Atwater has a young population, with a 2020 median age of 33.2 years, which is lower than the state median of 37.5. This is largely due to the greater presence of non-adult children, who make up almost 30 percent of the Atwater population. Atwater shows an increasing percentage and number of persons 65 and older, as the “baby boom” generation ages. The growth in the population for all age groups may indicate demand for increased services targeting different age groups, especially children and the elderly, as well as housing suitable for household needs ranging from smaller homes for seniors who may be interested in downsizing and larger homes for young families.

Race and Ethnicity
Atwater and Merced County are “minority majority” areas. The city and county ethnic profiles are dominated by large and increasingly Latino populations, which may influence the types of retail and services demanded within the community.

5 Educational Attainment
The educational levels of an area’s residents are a key driver of local economic potential; a more educated populace is likely to be associated with stronger economic conditions including higher resident incomes and a more fully employable labor force. Atwater, though, shows a lower level of educational achievement than California overall. Improving educational outcomes for local students would likely provide more employment opportunities and an improved quality of life for those residents and make Atwater more attractive to a broader range of employers.

Household and Per Capita Income
Resident incomes are an indicator of local economic conditions, with local spending strongly linked to resident incomes; local resident expenditures also generate tax dollars to support city services. Atwater’s resident income levels are well below statewide levels. These income levels are likely associated with the lower educational attainment levels in the city, and result in lower per capita gross domestic product and retail sales in comparison to the state.

Further, the prevailing incomes indicate that it will be important for the City to consider the need for housing types that are built and rented and/or sold at costs that can be more attainable to households with modest incomes.

Economic Conditions

Gross Domestic Product
One measure of an area’s economy is gross domestic product (GDP), which estimates the annual value of all goods and services produced within that area. In 2021 the total GDP for Merced County was approximately $10.5 billion; this amounts to only about 0.3 percent of California’s overall GDP of $3.4 trillion. In the county, the government and agriculture sectors are over-represented relative to the state. Nondurable goods manufacturing (e.g., food processing) is also a strong contributor to GDP for Merced County. Finance and real estate, professional and related services, and especially information are relatively small sectors in Merced County, indicating that the county’s participation in California’s tech and related services sector is limited. Overall, GDP data indicates that the county’s economy is growing at only about half the rate for the state overall. The county GDP also lags on a per capita basis, at less than half the statewide figure. For the Atwater Zip Code, 95301, which also encompasses areas beyond the city limits, IMPLAN estimates that the area’s GDP constitutes 14 percent of the county-wide GDP. Although this is fairly well correlated to the City’s 11 percent share of the countywide population, suggesting that Atwater has a reasonable balance between residential and commercial activity, as discussed below, there is a fairly large deficit of local jobs in relation to the number of employed local residents.

6 Unemployment Trends
The unemployment rate is an indicator of local and regional economic strength; lower unemployment is generally linked to a healthy economy that is providing adequate job opportunities to area residents. Areas with large agriculture sectors typically have higher rates of unemployment and more seasonal variation in employment.

Between 2010 and 2022, Atwater and Merced County experienced consistently higher unemployment rates than California, with unemployment rates from three to six percent above the statewide rate. In 2022, the city’s unemployment rate averaged 7.5 percent, with the county rate at 7.7 percent, compared to a state rate of only 4.2 percent.

In addition to having high unemployment relative to the state, Atwater and Merced County have substantial seasonal swings in employment tied to the region’s agricultural economy.

The creation of additional year-round jobs would likely benefit local workers by reducing the reliance on seasonal employment and providing more stable year-round income.

Jobs by Industry
Employment by major industry sector shows the strong focus on agriculture and food product manufacturing in Merced County. For Atwater, in descending rank order, natural resources and mining (which includes agricultural employment), retail trade, and the government sector (which includes public schools) provide over half of the city’s employment.

Between 2017 and 2022, Atwater showed rapid employment growth compared to the county and the state, with that growth concentrated in agriculture, construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food services. However, the limited growth, and even loss of jobs, in “white collar” sectors such as professional services, indicates that Atwater and Merced County have so far had limited success in diversifying their economies to provide more of these types of jobs, which tend to provide higher earnings and more full-time work than many of the current agriculture and service-related jobs. This information suggests that further economic diversification should be an economic development priority.

Future Job Growth
Based on Caltrans projections, Merced County will experience 17.8 percent growth in employment between 2020 and 2050, to a total of approximately 96,000 jobs, with most of this growth occurring by 2030. Assuming that Atwater maintains a constant share of Merced County jobs, employment in the city would reach 8,900 jobs in 2050. However, City actions with respect to economic development, land use, and other factors could influence the future of job creation in Atwater. The Caltrans projections by major industry group indicate that the overall economic base of Merced County will remain similar over time, with agriculture and related industries continuing to be a key component of the economy. Thus, to achieve economic diversification, the City of Atwater will need to make concerted efforts to retain,

7 expand, and attract business types that are outside of the City’s legacy agriculture, government, and services sectors.

Worker Earnings
As noted above, Atwater residents and households have incomes below statewide levels. This results in large part from the pay levels associated with the jobs available in the city. Average annual pay for jobs in Atwater is below that of the county, and well below the average for California, further highlighting the need for diversification of the local economy into new industry sectors.

Resident Employment
Resident occupations in Atwater and Merced County also reflect the local economy, with an orientation toward production and manufacturing jobs rather than professional services and information. Compared to California, Atwater, and Merced County show high proportions of residents in “blue collar” occupations including production, transportation, and material moving occupations and natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.

Residents of the city and county exhibit low concentrations of “white collar” jobs in computer, engineering, and science and in management, business, and financial occupations.

Overall, the labor force appears relatively well-matched with the current local jobs, but the educational attainment and the particular skill sets of local residents may limit the ability of the city to attract industries such as professional services or life sciences that require higher education levels or specific training. This information indicates that the City should consider undertaking efforts to increase its attractiveness to workers with higher education and skill levels who, in turn, may help to attract a more diversified set of local businesses. Typically, these types of workers seek communities with a high quality of life, including good parks and recreational amenities and arts, educational, and cultural opportunities. The City can also work on “upskilling” the local workforce to enhance the attractiveness of the local workforce to businesses that seek a labor force with higher education and skills.

Major Employers in Merced County
As discussed above, government establishments provide a large share of the jobs in Merced County, account for a large share of the county’s GDP, and accordingly, represent six of the top seven largest employers reported for Merced County. Mercy Medical Center and food processing businesses round out the list of the top ten employers.

Jobs/Employed Residents Balance and Commute Flows
Atwater and Merced County both show an imbalance between workers and jobs, with more working residents than jobs. This is an indicator of net out-commuting from the city and the county, with only approximately one job in Atwater for every two working residents.

Additionally, there is substantial cross-commuting, such that local residents hold only 38 percent of the jobs within the city, and only approximately 20 percent of employed residents

8 work in the city. This information highlights the importance of local economic development, to create a better balance between the size of the local working population and the number of local employment opportunities.

Taxable Sales Trends
The level of purchases by households, businesses, and government provides another measure of the strength of a local economy. In 2022, Atwater had local taxable sales of approximately $392 million, 11 percent of the countywide total of $3.57 billion. On a per capita basis, Atwater and Merced County had comparable sales levels, at $12,419 and $12,551, respectively. In contrast, statewide per capita sales were $20,019. The lower sales in Atwater and the county reflect the lower incomes and spending power of city and county residents.

The lower per capita retail sales levels have implications for the quality of City services, as sales tax revenue is a major source of General Fund revenues that the City uses to fund basic municipal services.

Atwater lags the county and state for motor vehicle-related retail, home furnishings and appliances stores, and building materials outlets with sales to Atwater residents being captured in other larger nearby cities. Attracting a large building materials outlet to the city may represent a potential opportunity to capture additional taxable retail sales. Atwater has strong general merchandise store sales, due to the presence of large Walmart and Target stores which attract customers from outside the city. It should be noted, however, that the growth of online shopping has adversely affected the viability of local “brick and mortar” retail outlets, especially for certain types of specialty goods such as electronics, books, and clothing.

Castle Commerce Center
Located adjacent to Atwater, the former Castle Air Force Base, now the Castle Airport and Castle Commerce Center, offers a key asset serving the local economic base. This facility includes a general aviation airport and a developing multi-modal freight facility with rail service for local agricultural producers and industries. The Airport is within a Foreign Trade Zone, and the Commerce Center includes office, warehouse, and R&D facilities and acreage, as well as aviation support and training facilities. In July 2023, the California State Transportation Agency awarded a Port and Freight Infrastructure Project grant of $49.6 million toward a $115.7 million project to build out an inland port at the Castle Commerce Center, providing multiple transportation modes for the shipment and transfer of goods, particularly agricultural products.

While the Airport and Commerce Center are outside city limits, the current and future facilities will provide jobs for city residents and generate economic activity within Atwater itself. The development of improved rail-related facilities will also provide environmental benefits by replacing multiple truck trips with fewer train trips, resulting in reduced emissions and improved local air quality.

9 Real Estate Market Conditions

Residential Real Estate Market
The housing stock in Atwater consists of a preponderance of single-family detached homes.

Conversely, the city’s housing unit mix includes limited proportions of apartment-style multifamily housing units.

Despite housing being oriented toward single-family detached homes in Atwater and Merced County, neither area shows a higher level of owner-occupancy than the state, perhaps indicating that the lower income levels in the county are limiting the ability of local households to purchase their own homes.

Housing construction in Atwater peaked in the 1970s, with nearly one-fourth of all housing in the city constructed during that decade. Less than five percent of housing units have been built since 2010, with more recent development shifting to other areas of Merced County.

Vacancy rates help demonstrate the relationship between housing supply and demand and can indicate whether a jurisdiction has an adequate housing supply to accommodate demand.

As of 2020, Atwater shows a relatively low overall housing vacancy rate of 3.2 percent, lower than the 4.9 percent countywide and 6.4 percent statewide rates. The vacancy rate for Atwater is a steep decline from vacancy rates in 2010 during the Great Recession and associated housing market and financial market crisis. The low vacancy rate in Atwater may indicate that the local housing market is struggling to meet demand as new households and existing households seeking different housing types face a lack of choices and may indicate that there is pent-up demand for new housing development.

Between June 2022 and April 2023, larger single-family residential units with three or more bedrooms were the most commonly sold unit type. The median home sale price for singlefamily units was $360,000.

CoStar reports approximately 2,700 market-rate multifamily units in Atwater, with a vacancy rate of only 1.7 percent. The citywide average apartment rental rate is $1,153 as of the second quarter of 2023. This low vacancy rate is indicative of a strong apartment rental market in Atwater.

Retail Real Estate Market
Retail properties in Atwater are primarily concentrated in three nodes: adjacent to State Highway 99 near the Applegate Road exit, along or near Bellevue Road, and Downtown along or near Broadway. The largest shopping center (by far) in Atwater is the Applegate Ranch Shopping Center at Applegate Road and State Route 99, containing both a Walmart Supercenter and a Super Target, along with numerous other retailers. Bellevue Road is home to several older centers anchored by supermarkets or second-generation replacement stores.

10 Downtown Atwater is home to a mix of small independent retailers and service businesses along Broadway and nearby streets. The City has undertaken efforts to enhance “Old Town Atwater,” including the 2009 Atwater Downtown Revitalization Strategy, with work on this strategy ongoing.

Overall, CoStar reports approximately 1.7 million square feet of retail space in Atwater, out of a total of 12 million square feet countywide, or about 14 percent of the countywide retail inventory. Considering that Atwater’s resident population is about 11 percent of the countywide population, the City has a disproportionate share of the inventory and may be a net attractor of shoppers from other areas. Vacancies are limited, at only 1.6 percent of the retail inventory in the city. This low vacancy rate indicates that the supply of retail space will need to expand as the City’s population expands, with little “slack” in the existing inventory to accommodate growth in the retail spending of local households.

Office Real Estate Market
The data on employment by major industry indicates limited demand for office space in Atwater. CoStar data confirms this, with a total reported inventory of only approximately 340,000 square feet, out of a total of 3.6 million square feet in Merced County. In Atwater, office uses are scattered throughout the city. Office vacancies are extremely low, at less than one percent. This low vacancy rate may indicate that there is existing pent-up demand for space for local office-based businesses to expand, and it also limits the City’s ability to foster start-up businesses or attract businesses from outside the community that wish to relocate or expand locally. Expanding the supply of office space will likely be needed to support economic diversification.

Industrial Real Estate Market
Industrial development in Atwater is concentrated in the southern portions of the city, with a large cluster of properties to the south of Highway 99 and east of the Applegate Ranch Shopping Center. Other industrial uses, including the Teasdale Latin Foods facility, are found between the Union Pacific rail line and Highway 99. Much of the city south of Highway 99 is zoned for manufacturing, industrial, and business park uses, along with some areas near the airport and in the westernmost areas of the city north of Highway 99. CoStar reports approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing industrial space in Atwater, and 12.0 million in Merced County overall. Vacancies for industrial space are extremely low, at 1.0 percent for Atwater and 2.3 percent for the county.

The low vacancy rates in not only the industrial sector but also the retail and office sectors indicate that new businesses or existing businesses seeking to expand within the City would have little choice of space offered for sale or for lease. This could encourage businesses to choose locations outside of Atwater where there is greater availability of space. The lack of vacancies may hinder efforts to attract new and/or retain existing businesses as a means of

11 diversifying the local economy. Land use and economic development-related policies should encourage and facilitate developers to expand the local supply of non-residential real estate.

Fiscal Conditions
The City of Atwater General Fund receives the City’s discretionary revenues and funds its basic municipal services. Atwater’s General Fund revenues and expenditures vary annually based on the changing conditions in the city. The majority of revenue generated within Atwater is attributed to property and sales taxes, while General Fund expenditures are primarily associated with police and fire services.

With the exception of the proposed budget for the current fiscal year, Atwater’s General Fund has maintained a positive annual balance, allowing the City to build a reserve that, even with this year’s imbalance, remains at 25 percent. The substantial reserve could assist the City during any future periods of declining revenues and/or increasing expenses. With the State of California projected to experience a substantial budget deficit for the 2024/2025 Fiscal Year, the local budget reserve could give the City flexibility to adapt to cutbacks in State subventions to local governments that sometimes occur during State budget crises.

Property taxes are a critical source of revenue for the City. The Tax Rate Area (TRA) property tax shares for Atwater falls in two ranges. TRAs covering most of the city provide between 31 percent and 32 percent of the total one percent ad valorem property tax rate to the city, but some peripheral areas, representing more recent annexations, only provide between 17 percent and 18 percent of the ad valorem property tax to the City General Fund. Based on the current master property tax revenue sharing agreement with the County, Atwater’s share of property taxes from any future annexations would likely be similar to that from other recently incorporated areas covered by the lower rate of 17 to 18 percent. This means that the City generally receives a lower share of property tax revenue to help fund services for new development than it had historically, which could make the City more dependent upon other sources of revenue, such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax, to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability as the City continues to grow.

The City should carefully assess the fiscal impacts of any annexation to ensure that the cost to provide services to the new areas does not exceed the revenue generated by the annexation.

In particular, the City should carefully consider the needs for expansion of Fire and Police services, which represent more than 50 percent of General Fund revenue consumption.

Typically, providing services to infill development is more efficient than for newly annexed properties, and the more limited property tax allocated to the City from annexed properties provides an additional reason for the city to focus new development as much as possible within infill areas where the City receives more robust property tax shares. In addition, the City could likely benefit from expansion of non-residential land uses within the City which, in addition to helping improve the local jobs housing balance (i.e., shortfall of jobs relative to employed residents), would likely create fiscal benefits as non-residential land uses often

12 generate more revenue than new service costs. In addition, economic diversification can help to make the local economy (and tax base) more resilient to broader regional, state, and national economic challenges, such as the projected State budget deficit.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
The following section presents population, household, and housing characteristics and trends for Atwater, Merced County, and the State of California, providing demographic context for the General Plan Update. This section draws primarily from public sources such as the U.S Bureau of the Census and the State California Department of Finance. In addition to current year estimates, the following analysis also presents historical data in order to identify important demographic trends within Atwater and Merced County.

Population and Household Trends
Population and households, and changes over time in their numbers, are key factors in assessing conditions for a locale, driving local trends in housing, labor force and employment, real estate (both residential and commercial), and consumer, business and government expenditures.

Population Trends
By population, Atwater is the third largest of the six incorporated cities in Merced County, ranking behind Merced and Los Banos. Merced County is the 23rd most populous of California’s 58 counties. These rankings have been relatively unchanged since 2000, as the city, the county, and the state have all shown population growth.

Since 2010, Atwater’s population has increased at a faster rate than for Merced County overall, which in turn has grown faster than California’s (see Table 1). However, that growth occurred between 2010 and 2020, with little change in population since 2020. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the 2023 Atwater population at 31,418 and the county population at 285,337.

Household Trends
The number of households in Atwater also grew faster than in the county or California, at about the same rate as population growth. However, the number of households continued to grow after 2020 in Atwater, Merced County, and California even where population did not in Atwater and the state. For 2023, DOF estimates the city has 10,136 households, with the county at 86,906 households. Due to the growth in the number of households after 2020 while population showed declines or limited growth, all three geographies showed a decrease in average household size to levels below those in 2010. Even as the average sizes have

13 declined, Atwater and Merced County still both have larger households on average than the state; larger households are likely to seek larger housing units than smaller households. The discussion of the housing market below will examine whether the city and county housing stock characteristics reflect this demographic differentiation from the state overall.

Table 1: Population and Household Trends, 2010, 2020, and 2023 Notes:
(a) Decennial 2010 Census figures, as adjusted by California Department of Finance. (b) California Department of Finance 2020 and 2023 figures.

Sources: California Department of Finance 2010, 2020 and 2023, Table E5; BAE, 2023.

Age Characteristics
Atwater and Merced County have a young population relative to California overall (see Table 2), with the 2020 median age at 33.2 years in Atwater and 32.0 in the county, compared to

37.5 statewide. These lower median ages are largely due to the presence of more non-adult children; 29.4 percent of the Atwater population and 28.8 percent of the county population is under 18 years of age, in contrast to only 22.0 percent for California. Each of the age categories displayed in Table 2 shows at least some growth in Atwater and the county over the 2010 to 2020 decade, while the state has actually lost population for the under 25 group. All three geographies show an increasing percentage and number of 65 and older persons, as the “baby boom” generation ages, but the proportions are lower in the city and county than in the state. Nevertheless, the growth in the population for all age groups may indicate demand for increased services targeting different age groups, especially children and the elderly. % Change % Change
Population 2010 (a) 2020 (b) 2023 (b) 2010-2020 2020-2023 City of Atwater 28,168 31,751 31,418 12.7% -1.0%
Merced County 255,793 281,202 285,337 9.9% 1.5%
California 37,253,956 39,538,223 38,940,231 6.1% -1.5%
Households
City of Atwater 8,838 9,970 10,136 12.8% 1.7%
Merced County 75,642 83,464 86,906 10.3% 4.1%
California 12,568,167 13,475,623 13,739,470 7.2% 2.0%
Average Household Size
City of Atwater 3.18 3.18 3.09 0.0% -2.7%
Merced County 3.32 3.29 3.20 -0.8% -2.7%
California 2.90 2.86 2.77 -1.2% -3.4% Page 463 of 595
14 Table 2: Age Distribution, 2010 and 2020
Note:
(a) Totals may not match other tables due to independent rounding or different source data.

Sources: U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2010, Tables P12 and P13; U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2020, Tables P12 and P13; BAE, 2023.

Race and Ethnicity
Atwater and Merced County are “minority majority” areas. The city and county ethnic profiles are dominated by large and increasing Latino populations. The city’s population was approximately 60 percent Latino in 2020, up from 53 percent in 2010, and the county was approximately 62 percent, an increase from 55 percent in 2010 (see Table 3). While California also has an increasing Latino share of the total population, in 2020 the proportion was still slightly below 40 percent. The city, county, and state are all undergoing an absolute 2010 2020
City of Atwater Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 18 9,016 32.0% 9,409 29.4% 393 4.4%
18-24 2,968 10.5% 3,015 9.4% 47 1.6%
25-34 4,004 14.2% 4,374 13.7% 370 9.2%
35-44 3,488 12.4% 4,173 13.1% 685 19.6%
45-54 3,314 11.8% 3,493 10.9% 179 5.4%
55-64 2,446 8.7% 3,409 10.7% 963 39.4%
65 or older 2,932 10.4% 4,097 12.8% 1,165 39.7%
Total Population (a) 28,168 100.0% 31,970 100.0% 3,802 13.5% Median Age
2010 2020
Merced County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 18 80,698 31.5% 80,979 28.8% 281 0.3%
18-24 30,456 11.9% 32,004 11.4% 1,548 5.1%
25-34 35,060 13.7% 38,711 13.8% 3,651 10.4%
35-44 31,967 12.5% 35,409 12.6% 3,442 10.8%
45-54 31,007 12.1% 31,107 11.1% 100 0.3%
55-64 22,645 8.9% 29,511 10.5% 6,866 30.3%
65 or older 23,960 9.4% 33,481 11.9% 9,521 39.7%
Total Population 255,793 100.0% 281,202 100.0% 25,409 9.9% Median Age
2010 2020
California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 18 9,295,040 25.0% 8,711,118 22.0% (583,922) -6.3% 18-24 3,922,951 10.5% 3,809,055 9.6% (113,896) -2.9%
25-34 5,317,877 14.3% 5,826,832 14.7% 508,955 9.6%
35-44 5,182,710 13.9% 5,326,009 13.5% 143,299 2.8%
45-54 5,252,371 14.1% 4,977,255 12.6% (275,116) -5.2%
55-64 4,036,493 10.8% 4,870,790 12.3% 834,297 20.7%
65 or older 4,246,514 11.4% 6,017,164 15.2% 1,770,650 41.7% Total Population 37,253,956 100.0% 39,538,223 100.0% 2,284,267 6.1% Median Age
Change, 2010-2020

35.2 37.5
Change, 2010-2020
30 33.2
Change, 2010-2020

29.6 32.0

15 decline in the white and Black non-Hispanic populations, with increases for other smaller racial categories.

Table 3: Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2020
Notes:
(a) Includes all races for those of Hispanic/Latino background.

Sources: U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2010, Table P5; and Decennial Census 2020, Table P5; BAE, 2023.

Educational Attainment
The educational levels of an area’s residents are a key driver of local economic potential; a more educated populace is likely to be associated with stronger economic conditions including higher resident incomes and a more fully employable labor force. As shown in Table 4, Atwater and Merced County show lower level of educational achievement than California overall, with lower proportions of high school graduates and less than half the percentage of adults with 2010 2020
City of Atwater Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Hispanic/Latino (a) 14,808 52.6% 19,042 59.6% 4,234 28.6% Not Hispanic/Latino 13,360 47.4% 12,928 40.4% (432) -3.2% White 10,085 35.8% 8,788 27.5% (1,297) -12.9%
Black/African American 1,087 3.9% 1,001 3.1% (86) -7.9% Native American 132 0.5% 133 0.4% 1 0.8%
Asian 1,347 4.8% 1,684 5.3% 337 25.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 66 0.2% 60 0.2% (6) -9.1% Other 61 0.2% 144 0.5% 83 136.1%
Two or More Races 795 2.8% 5,014 15.7% 4,219 530.7%
Total Population 28,168 100.0% 31,970 100.0% 3,802 13.5% 2010 2020
Merced County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Hispanic/Latino (a) 140,485 54.9% 173,857 61.8% 33,372 23.8% Not Hispanic/Latino 115,308 45.1% 107,345 38.2% (7,963) -6.9% White 81,599 31.9% 68,729 24.4% (12,870) -15.8%
Black/African American 8,785 3.4% 8,191 2.9% (594) -6.8% Native American 1,126 0.4% 1,164 0.4% 38 3.4%
Asian 18,183 7.1% 19,824 7.0% 1,641 9.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 476 0.2% 617 0.2% 141 29.6% Other 439 0.2% 1,242 0.4% 803 182.9%
Two or More Races 62,226 24.3% 87,873 31.2% 25,647 41.2% Total Population 255,793 100.0% 281,202 100.0% 25,409 9.9% 2010 2020
California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Hispanic/Latino (a) 14,013,719 37.6% 15,579,652 39.4% 1,565,933 11.2% Not Hispanic/Latino 23,240,237 62.4% 23,958,571 60.6% 718,334 3.1% White 14,956,253 40.1% 13,714,587 34.7% (1,241,666) -8.3% Black/African American 2,163,804 5.8% 2,119,286 5.4% (44,518) -2.1% Native American 162,250 0.4% 156,085 0.4% (6,165) -3.8% Asian 4,775,070 12.8% 5,978,795 15.1% 1,203,725 25.2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 128,577 0.3% 138,167 0.3% 9,590 7.5% Other 85,587 0.2% 223,929 0.6% 138,342 161.6%
Two or More Races 846,688 2.3% 4,132,513 10.5% 3,285,825 388.1% Total Population 37,253,956 100.0% 39,538,223 100.0% 2,284,267 6.1% Change, 2010-2020
Change, 2010-2020
Change, 2010-2020

16 bachelor’s degrees or higher. Nearly 30 percent of the city and county adults 25 or older have not completed high school, almost twice the statewide proportion. Improving educational outcomes for local students would likely provide more employment opportunities and an improved quality of life for those students as well as improving the City’s attractiveness to the types of businesses that prioritize the educational attainment of the local workforce.

Table 4: Educational Attainment, 2021 Five-Year Sample Data Notes:
(a) Totals may not match other tables due to independent rounding or different source data.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, Table S1501; BAE, 2023.

Household Composition
Atwater and the county have somewhat higher proportions of family households than California. Over three-fourths of their households are family households, compared to slightly less than 70 percent statewide (see Table 5). A family household is a household with at least two related individuals in it. The higher proportions of family households is linked to the high proportion of children as discussed above.

City of Atwater Merced County
Educational Attainment Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than 9th Grade 3,061 15.6% 30,984 18.1% 2,380,657 8.8% 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 2,672 13.6% 17,822 10.4% 1,804,222 6.7% High School Graduate (incl. Equivalency) 4,703 23.9% 50,217 29.4% 5,578,997 20.7% Some College, No Degree 4,892 24.9% 34,479 20.2% 5,287,901 19.7% Associate Degree 1,740 8.8% 12,854 7.5% 2,120,275 7.9%
Bachelor's Degree 2,024 10.3% 16,472 9.6% 5,958,030 22.1% Graduate/Professional Degree 590 3.0% 8,166 4.8% 3,779,787 14.0% Total Population 25+ (a) 19,682 100.0% 170,994 100.0% 26,909,869 100.0% Population 25+ No High School
Diploma
Population 25+ High School Graduate
(incl. Equivalency) or Higher (%)
Population 25+ with Bachelor's
Degree or Higher (%)
California

36.2%

70.9% 71.5% 84.4%

13.3% 14.4%

29.1% 28.5% 15.6%

17 Table 5: Household Type, 2010 and 2020
Note:

Sources: U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2010, Table P28; U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2020, Table P16; BAE, 2023.

Household and Per Capita Income
Resident incomes are an indicator of local economic conditions. Local spending is largely dependent on these income levels, with greater spending supporting more jobs and importantly to the local jurisdictions such as Atwater, those expenditures generate tax dollars to support city services. As displayed in Table 6, Atwater and the County have similar income characteristics, with median annual household incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 and annual per capita incomes between $23,000 and $25,000. These are well below the income levels statewide, where the median household income per the 2021 American Community Survey is almost $85,000 and the per capita income is approximately $42,000 annually. As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, these income levels are likely associated with the lower educational attainment levels in the city and county, and result in the lower per capita gross domestic product and retail sales in comparison to the state, as shown in Table 7 and Error! Reference source not found..
2010 2020
City of Atwater Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Family Households 6,823 77.2% 7,676 77.0% 853 12.5%
Non-Family Households 2,015 22.8% 2,294 23.0% 279 13.8% Total Households 8,838 100.0% 9,970 100.0% 1,132 12.8%
2020
Merced County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Family Households 58,767 77.7% 64,458 77.2% 5,691 9.7%
Non-Family Households 16,875 22.3% 19,006 22.8% 2131 12.6% Total Households 75,642 100.0% 83,464 100.0% 7,822 10.3% 2020
California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Family Households 8,642,473 68.7% 9,296,271 69.0% 653,798 72.8% Non-Family Households 3,935,025 31.3% 4,179,352 31.0% 244,327 27.2% Total Households 12,577,498 100.0% 13,475,623 100.0% 898,125 7.1% Change, 2010-2020
Change, 2010-2020
2010 Change, 2010-2020
2010

18 Table 6: Household and Per Capita Income, 2021
Note:
(a) Totals may not match other tables due to independent rounding or different source data.

Sources: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, Tables B19001, B19013 and B19301; BAE, 2023.

City of Atwater Merced County California
Income Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $15,000 963 9.3% 12,234 14.4% 1,185,540 8.8%
$15,000-$24,999 909 8.8% 8,909 10.5% 808,568 6.0%
$25,000-$34,999 871 8.4% 8,111 9.5% 829,411 6.2%
$35,000-$49,999 1,603 15.5% 9,130 10.7% 1,206,545 9.0%
$50,000-$74,999 2,095 20.3% 17,211 20.3% 1,974,452 14.7% $75,000-$99,999 1,329 12.9% 9,352 11.0% 1,639,647 12.2% $100,000-$149,999 1,792 17.4% 12,203 14.4% 2,359,723 17.6% $150,000-$199,999 495 4.8% 4,753 5.6% 1,343,134 10.0%
$200,000 or more 252 2.4% 3,064 3.6% 2,082,043 15.5%
Total Households (a) 10,309 100.0% 84,967 100.0% 13,429,063 100.0% Median HH Income
Per Capita Income
$59,436
$24,576
$53,992
$23,118
$84,907
$42,396 Page 468 of 595
19 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
This section summarizes current economic conditions in the City of Atwater and Merced County. The analysis draws from several sources, including data published by the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

Gross Domestic Product
One measure of an area’s economy is gross domestic product (GDP), which is a measure of the annual value of all goods and services within that area. The BEA provides estimates by major industry sectors for US counties and states, thus highlighting key economic sectors for a given county or region. As shown in Table 7, in 2021 (most recent year available) the total GDP for Merced County was approximately $10.5 billion; this amounts to only about 0.3 percent of California’s overall GDP of $3.4 trillion. In the county, the government1 and agriculture sectors are over-represented relative to the state, accounting for 18.6 percent and

16.8 percent of GDP, respectively. Nondurable goods manufacturing (e.g., food processing) is also a strong contributor to GDP for Merced County. Finance and real estate, professional and related services, and especially information are relatively small sectors in Merced County, indicating that the county’s participation in California’s tech and related services sector is limited.

Overall, GDP data indicates that the county’s economy is growing at only about half the rate for the state overall; in constant 2012 dollars, Merced County’s GDP grew by 20 percent between 2011 and 2021; statewide GDP growth was 39 percent.2 The county GDP also lags on a per capita basis, at only $37,280, less than half the statewide figure of $85,863.

While BEA does not provide sub-county estimates of GDP, there are Zip Code-level estimates from IMPLAN, a provider of software for modelling economic impacts. For the Atwater Zip Code, 95301, which also encompasses areas outside the city but is the “best fit” available, IMPLAN estimates that the area’s GDP constitutes 14 percent of the county-wide GDP.3 1 Note that government includes public education and other public sector activities. 2 Bureau of Economic Analysis Tables SAGDP1 and CAGDP9, https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp, accessed Jully 20, 2023.
3 IMPLAN’s GDP estimates are similar to but vary somewhat from BEA estimates, so cannot be compared directly to the BEA figures. Per IMPLAN’s internal estimates, the 95301 Zip Code includes approximately 15 percent of the jobs and population of Merced County.

20 Table 7: Gross Domestic Product by Industry in 2021, Merced County & California Notes:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is in thousands of current dollars (not adjusted for inflation). Industry detail is based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Last updated: December 8, 2022
(a) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information; estimates are included in higher-level totals.

Totals may not sum exactly from parts due to independent rounding. (b) Based on DOF population estimates for 2021 from 2023 E-5 Report.

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis Table CAGDP2, Gross domestic product by county& metropolitan area; California Department of Finance (DOF); BAE.

Unemployment Trends
Another indicator of local and regional economic strength and trends is the unemployment rate; lower unemployment is generally linked to a healthy economy that is providing adequate job opportunities to area residents. As a “rule of thumb,” a rate of five percent is considered to represent full employment, high enough to allow workers to move between jobs and to limit upward inflationary wage pressures due to employers having difficulty filling open positions.

As presented in Figure 3, between 2010 and 2022, Atwater and Merced Monterey County experienced consistently higher unemployment rates than California. For the 12-year period, GDP in thousands of 2021 dollars
Merced County Cailfornia
Industry Sector Number Percent Number Percent
Government & government enterprises $1,947,378 18.6% $373,598,430 11.1% Private industries
Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting $1,762,513 16.8% $38,294,632 1.1% Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, & leasing $1,455,538 13.9% $617,020,764 18.3% Nondurable goods manufacturing $1,087,716 10.4% $152,636,729 4.5% Educational services, health care& social assistance $776,060 7.4% $256,456,541 7.6% Retail trade $761,052 7.3% $178,861,745 5.3%
Professional & business services $507,037 4.8% $492,172,731 14.6% Transportation & warehousing $450,599 4.3% $93,492,570 2.8% Construction $395,654 3.8% $124,564,467 3.7%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation & food services $274,837 2.6% $137,809,403 4.1% Durable goods manufacturing $223,149 2.1% $242,190,990 7.2% Other services (except government & government enterprises) $216,899 2.1% $57,713,613 1.7% Information $48,225 0.5% $362,001,669 10.7%
Mining, quarrying,& oil & gas extraction (a) na $12,014,817 0.4% Utilities (a) na $45,687,406 1.4%
Wholesale trade (a) na $188,724,156 5.6%
All industry total $10,465,518 100.0% $3,373,240,664 100.0% Gross Domestic Product per Capita in 2021 Dollarts $ (b) $37,280 $85,863 Page 470 of 595 21 the city and county unemployment rates have remained from three to six percent above the statewide rate. Areas with large agriculture sectors typically have higher rates of unemployment and more seasonal variation in employment.

Unemployment decreased and the gap between the local and county rates and the California rate narrowed between 2010 and 2019; unemployment rates spiked in 2020 due to the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by 2022 were again below or near the 2019 rates. The lower proportional decline for Atwater and Merced County may be in part due to larger proportions of essential workers in agriculture who continued to work throughout the pandemic period. For 2022, the city’s unemployment rate averaged 7.5 percent, with the county rate at 7.7 percent, compared to a state rate of 4.2 percent.

Figure 3: Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 2010-2022
Sources: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 2023; BAE, 2023.

In addition to having high unemployment relative to the state, Atwater and Merced County have substantial seasonal swings in employment tied to the region’s agricultural economy (see Figure 4). For example, the unemployment rate for Atwater in 2022 peaked in January, at

10.3 percent, with the lowest rate for the year at 5.6 percent in May. In contrast, the unemployment rate in California in 2022 only fluctuated between 3.7 percent and 5.6 percent.

The creation of additional year-round jobs would likely benefit the local labor force and reduce the reliance on seasonal employment.

20.1% 19.6%

18.2%

16.1%

14.3%

12.6%

10.1%

8.9%

7.8% 7.3%

12.2%

9.9%

7.5%

18.4% 17.9%

16.6%

14.7%

13.0%

11.4%

10.6%

9.4%

8.4% 8.2%

12.5%

10.3%

7.7%

12.5% 11.9%

10.5%

9.0%

7.6%

6.… 5.5%

4.8% 4.2% 4.1%

10.1%

7.3%

4.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 City of Atwater Merced County California

22 Figure 4: Monthly Unemployment Rates, 2015- July 2023 Sources: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Jobs by Industry
Employment by major industry sector shows the strong focus on agriculture and food product manufacturing in Merced County, as shown in Table 9, which presents industry job trends from 2017 through 2022 for wage and salary workers employed in Atwater, Merced County and California.4 For Atwater, in descending rank order, natural resources and mining (which includes agricultural employment)5, retail trade, and the government sector6 provide over half of the city’s employment. Countywide, government provides the most jobs, followed by natural resources and mining, and manufacturing (which consists largely of food manufacturing) provide over half of total employment. In comparison, “white collar” employment (in a set of several combined sectors as shown in Table 9), government, and health care and social assistance are the top three employment sectors in California, providing slightly less than half of all wage and salary employment. Natural Resources and Mining account for only 2.4 percent of jobs statewide.
4 This section is for workers by place of work, not necessarily place of residence. 5 Atwater shows no employment in mining.
6 This includes all government employment in all industries, not just public administration. For example, public school employment is in this category, not in education services. 0 0.02

0.04 0.06

0.08 0.1

0.12 0.14

0.16 0.18

0.2 Jan-15
May-15
Sep-15
Jan-16
May-16
Sep-16
Jan-17
May-17
Sep-17
Jan-18
May-18
Sep-18
Jan-19
May-19
Sep-19
Jan-20
May-20
Sep-20
Jan-21
May-21
Sep-21
Jan-22
May-22
Sep-22
Jan-23
May-23
Atwater County State

23 Atwater shows rapid employment growth compared to the county and the state, with growth concentrated in agriculture, construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food services.

However, the limited growth, and even loss of jobs, in “white collar” jobs such as professional services, indicates that Atwater and Merced County have so far had limited success in diversifying their economies to provide more of these types of jobs, which tend to provide higher earnings and more full-time work than many of the current agriculture and servicerelated jobs.

Worker Earnings
As discussed previously and shown in Table 6 above, Atwater residents and households have incomes below statewide levels. This results in large part from the pay levels associated with the jobs available in the city. Average annual pay for jobs in Atwater, at $42,733, is below that of the county ($50,912), and well below the average for California overall ($84,376).

Table 8: Average Annual Pay for Wage and Salary Workers, 2022 Note: Wage and salary employment; excludes sole proprietors and other self-employed persons.

Sources: QCEW; BLS; EDD.

Atwater $42,733
Merced County $50,912
California $84,376

24 Table 9: Jobs by Industry, Atwater, Merced California, and California, 2017-2022 Notes:

Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work on an annual average basis. Excludes self-employed persons not on payroll.

Some categories have been combined for the city due to disclosure rules. NAICS 51, 55, 56 and 61 are rolled up with NAICS 54, and Government is rolled up into one category. NAICS 62412 and 814 are deleted. To be consistent, the county and state data has been presented similarly. (a) NAICS 62412 excluded. Included in total employment, and in unclassified for county and state. Merced County employment in 62412 estimated using the ratio of jobs to establishments from statewide data. (b) NAICS 814 excluded. Included in total employment, and in unclassified for county and state. (c) Totals may not match sum of parts due to independent rounding and data confidentiality.

Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023; BAE, 2023.

City of Atwater Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Private Sector
Natural Resources and Mining 733 12.7% 1,710 22.0% 977 133.3% Construction 367 6.3% 857 11.0% 490 133.4%
Manufacturing 551 9.5% 615 7.9% 64 11.6%
Wholesade Trade 66 1.1% 50 0.6% (16) -24.2%
Retail Trade 1,176 20.3% 1,405 18.1% 229 19.5%
Transporation, Warehousing, and Utilities 3 0.1% 39 0.5% 36 1202.8% Information; Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services: Management of Companies & Enterprises; Administrative & Waste Services; Educational Services 233 4.0% 203 2.6% (30) -12.9% Finance and Insurance 108 1.9% 62 0.8% (47) -43.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 28 0.5% 36 0.5% 8 27.1% Healthcare and Social Assistance (a) 647 11.2% 712 9.2% 65 10.0% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 56 1.0% 55 0.7% (1) -2.2% Accommodation and Food Services 649 11.2% 808 10.4% 159 24.5% Other Services (except Public Administration) (b) 109 1.9% 129 1.7% 20 18.7% Unclassified 12 0.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Government 1,052 18.2% 1,086 14.0% 34 3.3%
Total Employment (c) 5,790 100.0% 7,766 100.0% 1,988 34.1% Merced County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Private Sector
Natural Resources and Mining 14,050 17.7% 14,078 16.9% 28 n.a.

Construction 2,359 3.0% 3,279 3.9% 920 39.0%
Manufacturing 9,504 12.0% 9,832 11.8% 328 3.5%
Wholesale Trade na na na na na na
Retail Trade 8,304 10.5% 8,805 10.6% 501 6.0%
Transporation, Warehousing, and Utilities 2,802 3.5% 2,966 3.6% 164 5.9% Information; Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services: Management of Companies & Enterprises; Administrative & Waste Services; Educational Services 4,363 5.5% 4,322 5.2% (41) -0.9% Finance and Insurance 1,304 1.6% 1,245 1.5% (59) -4.5%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 547 0.7% 622 0.7% 75 13.7% Healthcare and Social Assistance (a) 6,428 8.1% 6,456 7.8% 28 0.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 498 0.6% 585 0.7% 87 17.5% Accommodation and Food Services 5,078 6.4% 6,341 7.6% 1,263 24.9% Other Services (except Public Administration) (b) 1,173 1.5% 1,532 1.8% 359 30.6% Unclassified or Excluded 5,141 6.5% 6,067 7.3% 926 18.0% Government 17,823 22.5% 17,126 21.6% (697) -3.9%
Total Employment (c) 79,373 100.0% 83,257 104.9% 3,884 4.9% California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Private Sector
Natural Resources and Mining 441,460 2.6% 436,751 2.4% (4,709) -1.1% Construction 805,942 4.7% 911,750 5.1% 105,808 13.1%
Manufacturing 1,303,550 7.7% 1,335,625 7.5% 32,075 2.5% Wholesale Trade 720,304 4.2% 668,518 3.7% (51,786)
Retail Trade 1,680,913 9.9% 1,616,028 9.0% (64,885) -3.9% Transporation, Warehousing, and Utilities 609,765 3.6% 837,196 4.7% 227,431 Information; Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services: Management of Companies & Enterprises; Administrative & Waste Services; Educational Services 3,377,250 19.8% 3,803,496 21.2% 426,246 12.6% Finance and Insurance 544,087 3.2% 535,890 3.0% (8,197) -1.5% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 283,407 1.7% 305,110 1.7% 21,703 7.7% Healthcare and Social Assistance (a) 1,686,165 9.9% 1,846,465 10.3% 160,300 9.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 305,110 1.8% 307,399 1.7% 2,289 0.8% Accommodation and Food Services 1,630,870 9.6% 1,621,370 9.1% (9,500) -0.6% Other Services (except Public Administration) (b) 495,632 2.9% 505,685 2.8% 10,053 2.0% Unclassified or Excluded 674,197 4.0% 718,047 4.0% 43,850 6.5% Government 2,461,050 14.5% 2,464,630 13.8% 3,580 0.1%
Total Employment (c) 17,019,702 100.0% 17,913,958 100.0% 894,256 5.3% 2017 2022 Change 2017-2022
2017 2022 Change 2017-2022
2017 2022 Change 2017-2022

25 Resident Employment by Industry
Table 10 provides the industry distribution of workers for workers residing in Atwater, Merced County, and California, i.e., for the labor force. While the time period is different, the industry categorization varies, and the data is from a different source and should only be compared to the above data provided in Table 9 with caution, it appears that Atwater and Merced County both show an imbalance between workers and jobs, with more working residents than jobs. This is an indicator of net out-commuting from the city and the county. Commute flows are discussed in more detail below.

Similar to the jobs by industry in the city and county, the number of local residents employed in information, professional services and related “white collar” jobs is limited. Overall, the labor force appears relatively matched with the current local jobs, but the educational attainment and the particular skill sets of local residents may limit the ability of the city to attract industries such as professional services or life sciences that require higher education levels or specific training.

Table 10: Employed Residents by Industry
Note:
(a) Universe consists of all workers by place of residence. Previous table provides government workers regardless of industry; this table does not separate out government workers except those in public administration (e.g., public school staff would be in the education, etc. category, not public administration in this table). As a result, comparisons between these two tables should be made with caution.

Sources: US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, Table S2403; BAE, 2023.

Resident Employment by Occupation
Resident occupations in Atwater and Merced County also reflect the local economy, with an orientation toward production and manufacturing jobs rather than professional services and information as shown in Table 11. Compared to California, Atwater and Merced County show high Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
11, 21 Agriculture, Forestry, & Mining 1,231 9.3% 12,326 11.4% 394,881 2.1% 23 Construction 1,064 8.1% 8,623 8.0% 1,235,586 6.6%
22, 31-33,
42, 48-49
Manufacturing, Utilities, Transportation
& Warehousing, & Wholesale Trade
3,101 23.5% 23,440 21.7% 3,249,274 17.4%
44-45 Retail Trade 1,455 11.0% 11,804 10.9% 1,919,513 10.3% 52 Finance & Insurance 354 2.7% 1,836 1.7% 702,567 3.8% 53 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 160 1.2% 1239 1.1% 405394 2.2% 51, 54, 55 Information, Professional Services, &
Business Management
340 2.6% 3,923 3.6% 2,296,302 12.3%
56 Administrative & Support & Waste
Management & Remediation Services
524 4.0% 4,191 3.9% 856,240 4.6%
61, 62 Education, Health Care, & Social
Assistance
3,352 25.4% 23,797 22.0% 3,990,094 21.4%
71, 72 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation, &
Food Services
698 5.3% 7,682 7.1% 1,835,141 9.8%
81 Other Services 409 3.1% 4,275 4.0% 927,253 5.0%
92 Public Administration 502 3.8% 5,058 4.7% 864,476 4.6% Total, All Industries (a) 13,190 100% 108,194 100% 18,676,721 100% California
NAICS Industry Sector
City of Atwater Merced County

26 proportions of residents in “blue collar” occupations including production, transportation, and material moving occupations and natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.

The city and county exhibit low concentrations of “white collar” jobs in computer, engineering, and science and in management, business, and financial occupations.

Table 11: Employed Residents by Occupation, 2017-2021
Note:
(a) Totals may not match other tables due to independent rounding and use of different sources for the estimates.

Sources: US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, table C24010; BAE, 2023.

Major Employers in Merced County
As discussed above, government establishments provide a large share of the jobs in Merced County, account for a large share of the county’s GDP, and accordingly, represent six of the top seven largest employers reported for Merced County. Mercy Medical Center is ranked fourth, and food processing businesses round out the list of top ten employers (see Table 12). Combined, these employers provide over 14,000 jobs in the county, approximately 12 percent of total wage and salary employment.

Occupational Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Computer, Engineering, & Science 1,086 8.2% 10,426 10.0% 3,138,038 17.3% Management, Business, & Financial 597 4.5% 4,952 4.7% 1,848,659 10.2% Sales & Office 2,538 19.2% 16,583 15.9% 3,545,812 19.5% Production, Transportation, & Material Moving 2,637 20.0% 20,078 19.2% 2,190,054 12.1% Health Practitioners & Technicians 1,235 9.4% 9,207 8.8% 1,709,679 9.4% Service 1,549 11.7% 12,383 11.9% 2,344,883 12.9%
Education, Legal, & Arts 954 7.2% 10,732 10.3% 1,788,448 9.9% Natural Resources, Construction, & Maintenance 2,594 19.7% 20,048 19.2% 1,590,478 8.8% Total Employed Labor Force (a) 13,190 100.0% 104,409 100.0% 18,156,051 100.0% City of Atwater Merced County California

27 Table 12: Major Employers, Merced County, 2022
Sources: County of Merced, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, 2022, based on data from EDD; BAE, 2023.

Jobs/Employed Residents Balance and Commute Flows
As indicated above, the jobs-employed residents ratio in Atwater is heavily weighted toward employed residents, indicating many of those residents commute elsewhere for work. Using a single consistent source of commute data for Atwater, as shown in Table 13, shows that there is only approximately one job in Atwater for every two working residents. Additionally, there is substantial cross-commuting, such that only 38 percent of the jobs within the city are held by local residents, and only approximately 20 percent of employed residents work in the city. Slightly greater than half of the remainder work within Merced County, with about one-quarter commuting outside the county.

Table 13: Commute Flows, 2017-2021
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, Tables B08007, B08008, and B08624; BAE, 2023.

Taxable Sales Trends
The relative level of purchases by households, businesses, and government provides another measure of the strength of a local economy. In California, taxable sales reports provide a way to assess local buying power; comparing sales on a per capita basis with other locales and larger regions can highlight an area’s strengths and weaknesses. With the exception of most food for offsite consumption and prescription drugs, most end-user purchases of tangible goods in California Percentage of
Major Employers in Total County
Merced County Location Industry Employees Employment
UC Merced Merced Schools-Universities &
Colleges Academic
2,811 2.41%
County of Merced Merced Government OfficesCounty
2,157 1.85%
Merced County Office of Education Merced Government OfficesCounty 2,015 1.73%
Mercy Medical Center Merced Hospitals 1,371 1.18%
Merced City School District Merced School Districts 1,364 1.17% Merced Union High School District Merced School Districts 1,334 1.15% Merced College Merced Schools-Universities &
Colleges Academic
1,012 0.87%
Dole Packaged Foods LLC Atwater Food Processors 834 0.72% Liberty Packing Company LLC Los Banos Packing & Crating Service 650 0.56% Hilmar Cheese Company Inc. Hilmar Food Processors 650 0.56% Total County Employment 14,198 12.20%
Workers Employed Residents
Place of Residence Number Percent Place of Work Number Percent Atwater 2,517 38.1% Merced County 9,486 73.5%
All Other Locations 4,081 61.9% Atwater 2,517 19.5%
Total Working in City 6,598 100.0% All Other Merced County 6,969 54.0% All Other Locations 3,420 26.5%
Total Employed Residents 12,906 100.0%

28 are taxable, with data on the level of sales published by the state on a quarterly and annual basis.

The sales and use taxes collected also provide a source of revenue for government entities to provide services to a community, thus enhancing the community’s quality of life.

In 2022, Atwater had local taxable sales of approximately $392 million, 11 percent of the countywide total of $3.57 billion (see Error! Reference source not found. below); statewide taxable s ales were $782 billion. On a per capita basis, Atwater and Merced County had similar sales levels, at $12,419 and $12,551, respectively.7 In contrast, statewide per capita sales were $20,019. The lower sales in Atwater and the county reflect the lower incomes and spending power of city and county residents, as shown above in Table 6, with per capita income in Atwater and the county at less than 60 percent of the state level.

Detail by type of business type (also presented in Error! Reference source not found.) highlights s trengths and weaknesses of particular retail and related sectors in Atwater. Atwater lags the county and state for motor vehicle-related retail, home furnishings and appliances stores, and building materials outlets. These types of retail are dominated by auto malls and “big box” stores, and sales to Atwater residents are being captured in other larger nearby cities, especially in the auto center and Home Depot and Lowe’s stores in Merced city. Attracting a large building materials outlet to the city may represent a potential opportunity to capture additional taxable retail sales. On the other hand, Atwater has strong general merchandise store sales, due to the presence of large Walmart and Target stores which likely attract customers from nearby unincorporated areas such as Winton and McSwain. It should be noted, however, that the growth of online shopping has adversely affected the viability of local “brick and mortar” retail outlets, especially for certain types of goods such as electronics, books, and clothing, Nevertheless, as discussed below, Atwater and Merced County show extremely limited retail vacancies and continued demand for space according to CoStar, a service providing data on the retail, office, and industrial real estate inventory nationwide (see discussion and Table 21 below).
7 Note that in order to provide an appropriate comparison, county sales that are unallocated by city are excluded. This includes online sales and sales related to construction projects.

29 Table 14: Taxable Sales by Category, 2022
Notes:

Excludes unallocated sales at the city, county, and state level, in order to provide better comparison of city with larger areas. (a) Based on 2022 population estimates published by the Department of Finance.

Sources: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA); California Department of Finance; BAE, 2023.

City of Atwater
Category Number Percent Per Capita
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $12,985,938 3.3% $411
Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $5,103,456 1.3% $161 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equipment $7,314,452 1.9% $231
Food and Beverage Stores $34,629,202 8.8% $1,095
Gasoline Stations $54,011,056 13.8% $1,708
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $27,693,037 7.1% $876 General Merchandise Stores $83,472,161 21.3% $2,639
Food Services and Drinking Places $61,097,926 15.6% $1,932 Other Retail Group $32,119,360 8.2% $1,016
Subtotal, All Retail and Food $318,426,588 81.1% $10,068 All Other Outlets $74,378,366 18.9% $2,352
Total, All Outlets $392,804,954 100.0% $12,419
Merced County
Category Number Percent Per Capita
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $412,670,490 11.6% $1,452 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $53,040,170 1.5% $187 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equipment $207,260,383 5.8% $729 Food and Beverage Stores $204,926,156 5.7% $721
Gasoline Stations $755,294,810 21.2% $2,658
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $100,778,637 2.8% $355 General Merchandise Stores $450,826,994 12.6% $1,587
Food Services and Drinking Places $404,520,705 11.3% $1,424 Other Retail Group $202,273,007 5.7% $712
Subtotal, All Retail and Food $2,791,591,352 78.3% $9,825 All Other Outlets $774,577,022 21.7% $2,726
Total, All Outlets $3,566,168,374 100.0% $12,551
California
Category Number Percent Per Capita
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $107,327,993,599 13.7% $2,746 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $28,123,859,305 3.6% $720 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equipment $47,782,134,266 6.1% $1,223 Food and Beverage Stores $34,280,182,642 4.4% $877
Gasoline Stations $70,636,801,148 9.0% $1,808
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $40,072,459,084 5.1% $1,025 General Merchandise Stores $63,997,398,244 8.2% $1,638
Food Services and Drinking Places $101,686,416,493 13.0% $2,602 Other Retail Group $75,396,667,543 9.6% $1,929
Subtotal, All Retail and Food $569,303,912,324 72.8% $14,568 All Other Outlets $213,004,255,626 27.2% $5,451
Total, All Outlets $782,308,167,950 100.0% $20,019 Page 479 of 595 30 Castle Commerce Center
Located adjacent to Atwater, the former Castle Air Force Base, now the Castle Airport and Castle Commerce Center, offers a key asset serving the local economic base. This facility includes a general aviation airport with an 11,800 foot runway, over 100,000 annual aircraft operations, and a developing multi-modal freight facility with rail service for local agricultural producers and industries, providing access to the neighboring BNSF line. The Airport is within a Foreign Trade Zone, and the Commerce Center includes office, warehouse, and R& D facilities and acreage, as well as aviation support and training facilities.8
One of the activities taking place at the former air base is research on and testing of autonomous vehicles, including by Waymo. Merced County has provided funding to support this activity, including $2.1 million in 2021 to expand the 2.2-mile oval test track and other related facilities. These facilities are part of the TRC California Test Center, a branch of Ohio-based Transportation Research, Inc. More recently, in July 2023, the California State Transportation Agency awarded a Port and Freight Infrastructure Project grant of $49.6 million toward a $115.7 million project to build out an inland port at the Castle Commerce Center, providing multiple transportation modes for the shipment and transfer of goods, particularly agricultural products.

While the Airport and Commerce Center are outside city limits, the current and future facilities will provide jobs for city residents and generate economic activity within Atwater itself. The development of improved rail-related facilities will also provide environmental benefits by replacing multiple truck trips with fewer train trips, resulting in reduced emissions and better local air quality. 8 https://www.countyofmerced.com/1245/Castle-Commerce-Center.

31 REAL ESTATE MARKET CONDITIONS
Building on the demographic and economic conditions and trends presented above, the following section provides an overview of the current real estate market in Atwater, Merced County, and California using data published by the California Department of Finance, the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), and from private data vendors, including ListSource and CoStar.

Residential Market Overview
Housing Stock Characteristics
The housing stock in Atwater and Merced County is characterized by a preponderance of single family detached homes. Almost two-thirds of housing units in the city are in this category, and nearly three-fourths are countywide, in contrast to only 57 percent statewide (see Table 15). Conversely, the city and the county’ housing unit mix includes small proportions of larger multifamily (e.g., apartment) units, with units in buildings of five or more units making up less than 10 percent of housing, compared to almost 25 percent statewide.

Table 15: Units in Structure, 2023
Sources: Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Housing Tenure
Despite housing being oriented toward single-family detached homes in Atwater and Merced County, neither area shows a higher level of owner-occupancy than the state, perhaps indicating that the lower income levels in the county are limiting the ability of local households to purchase their own homes. In 2020, all three geographies showed between 54 and 56 percent owner-occupancy.

These levels are almost unchanged from 2010.

City of Atwater Merced County California
Units in Structure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Detached Single-Family 6,947 66.4% 67,630 73.9% 8,420,792 57.3% Attached Single-Family 637 6.1% 2,872 3.1% 1,056,780 7.2% 2 to 4 Units 1,594 15.2% 7,485 8.2% 1,146,148 7.8%
5 or more 583 5.6% 8,104 8.9% 3,545,018 24.1%
Mobile Homes 707 6.8% 5,374 5.9% 538,960 3.7%
Total, All Units 10,468 100.0% 91,465 100.0% 14,707,698 100.0% % Single Family
% Multifamily 20.8% 17.0% 31.9%

72.4% 77.1% 64.4%

32 Table 16: Occupied Housing Units by Tenure, 2010 and 2020 Sources: U.S. Census, Decennial Census 2010, Table H16 and Decennial Census 2020, Table H4; BAE, 2023.

Year Built
Housing construction in Atwater peaked in the 1970s, with nearly one-fourth of all housing in the city constructed during that decade (see Figure 5). Less than five percent of housing units have been built since 2010. More recent development has shifted to other areas of the county; the busiest decade for construction countywide was from 2000 through 2009, accounting for slightly less than one-fifth of the county housing inventory. While decades since the 1970s have seen a slower pace of construction in Atwater, new home construction continued at a healthy pace until the recession and housing market meltdown in 2010.
2010 2020
City of Atwater Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 4,905 55.5% 5,576 55.9% 671 13.7%
Renter-Occupied 3,933 44.5% 4,394 44.1% 461 11.7%
Total Occupied Units 8,838 100.0% 9,970 100.0% 1,132 12.8% 2010 2020
Merced County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 41,196 54.5% 45,639 54.7% 4,443 10.8%
Renter-Occupied 34,446 45.5% 37,825 45.3% 3,379 9.8%
Total Occupied Units 75,642 100.0% 83,464 100.0% 7,822 10.3% 2010 2020
California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 7,035,371 55.9% 7,348,329 54.5% 312,958 4.4% Renter-Occupied 5,542,127 44.1% 6,127,294 45.5% 585,167 10.6% Total Occupied Units 12,577,498 100.0% 13,475,623 100.0% 898,125 7.1% Change, 2010-2020
Change, 2010-2020
Change, 2010-2020

33 Figure 5: Housing Units by Year Built, 2017-2021 Five-Year Sample Data Sources: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021 five-year sample period, Table B25034; BAE, 2023.

Housing Occupancy Status
Vacancy rates help demonstrate the relationship between housing supply and demand and cany indicate whether a jurisdiction has an adequate housing supply to accommodate demand. The following section examines the published vacancy data from the U.S. Decennial Census. Since this data is collected on a regular and consistent basis every ten years, it allows an analysis of any changes in the local housing market over that time period. Vacancy trends may be linked to other changes in the housing market including increasing affordability problems.

As of 2020, Atwater shows a relatively low overall housing vacancy rate of 3.2 percent, lower than the 4.9 percent countywide and 6.4 percent statewide (see Table 17). These rates represent a steep decline from conditions in 2010 during the Great Recession and associated housing market and financial market crisis. Even though the overall housing inventory grew between 2010 and 2020 in the three geographies, there were less units vacant in 2020 than 2010. The low vacancy rate in Atwater may indicate that the local housing market is struggling to meet demand as new households and existing households seeking different housing face a lack of choices.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Built 1939
or earlier
Built 1940
to 1949
Built 1950
to 1959
Built 1960
to 1969
Built 1970
to 1979
Built 1980
to 1989
Built 1990
to 1999
Built 2000
to 2009
Built 2010
or later
% of Households Built
City of Atwater Merced County California

34 Table 17: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2010 and 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010, Tables H4 and H5; Decennial Census 2020, Tables H4 and H5; BAE, 2023.

Vacant housing units are not always available for occupancy in the regular housing market, with some units held for seasonal or occasional use, for use by migrant workers, or simply held off the market for other reasons (e.g., awaiting settlement of an estate, foreclosure, storage, needing repairs, or other personal reasons of the owner). Measuring vacancy rates by tenure, excluding units that are not occupied and not available for rent or sale, provides a more refined measure of market conditions relevant to those seeking a primary residence. Economists typically consider a healthy vacancy rate to be between approximately one and two percent in the ownership market, and approximately five percent for rental housing market. The rental vacancy rate is generally higher than the ownership vacancy rate as renters switch residences more frequently, such that at any given time a higher proportion of units are between occupants.

The low 2020 vacancy rates for renters in Atwater and Merced County indicate a constrained rental market, where demand may be greater than the overall supply, where one result could be increasing affordability issues as rents increase. In Atwater, the for-sale market also shows low vacancy rates that may also indicate a limited supply relative to demand. Merced County’s rate is also at the low end of the range for a balanced market, as is California’s also. 2010 2020
Occupancy/Vacancy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent City of Atwater
Occupied Housing Units 8,838 90.5% 9,970 96.8% 1,132 12.8% Vacant Housing Units 933 9.5% 326 3.2% (607) -65.1%
Total, Housing Units 9,771 100.0% 10,296 100.0% 525 5.4% Merced County
Occupied Housing Units 75,642 90.4% 83,464 95.1% 7,822 10.3% Vacant Housing Units 8,056 9.6% 4,319 4.9% (3,737) -46.4% Total, Housing Units 83,698 100.0% 87,783 100.0% 4,085 4.9% California
Occupied Housing Units 12,577,498 91.9% 13,475,623 93.6% 898,125 7.1% Vacant Housing Units 1,102,583 8.1% 916,517 6.4% (186,066) -16.9% Total, Housing Units 13,680,081 100.0% 14,392,140 100.0% 712,059 5.2% Change, 2010-2020

35 Table 18: Vacancy Rate by Tenure, 2010 and 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010, Tables H4 and H5; Decennial Census 2020, Table DP1.

For-Sale Residential Market Conditions
Between June 2022 and April 2023, 176 full and verified home sales were recorded in Atwater, consisting almost entirely of single-family residences, as displayed in Table 19. Larger single-family residential units with three or more bedrooms were the most commonly sold unit type during this period. The median home sale price for single-family units was $360,000 and the median sale price for condominiums (based on a very limited number of sales) was $335,000.

Atwater 2010 2020
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 3.3% 0.6%
Rental Vacancy Rate 10.9% 3.1%
Merced County 2010 2020
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 3.2% 1.1%
Rental Vacancy Rate 8.1% 3.9%
California 2010 2020
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.0% 1.0%
Rental Vacancy Rate 6.3% 4.6% Page 485 of 595
36 Table 19: Characteristics of Home Sales by Type, City of Atwater, June 2022 through April 2023
Note:

Data reflects single-family and condominiums sold from June 2022 through April 2023 (most recent data available at time of research).

Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2023.

Rental Residential Market Conditions
While the Census data provides insights into long-term trends regarding housing market conditions in Atwater, data from CoStar, a private data vendor tracking the real estate inventory across residential, industrial, retail, and commercial properties, reports more recent information on rents, vacancies, absorption, and new construction. CoStar multifamily data captures only a sample of the residential rental market and is not an exhaustive survey of the city or the county rental inventory; for instance, the total rental inventory includes single-family homes not counted by CoStar.

Table 20 provides a summary of recent multifamily rental residential market conditions for Atwater and Merced County. As presented below, CoStar reports approximately 2,700 market-rate multifamily units in Atwater, with a vacancy rate of only 1.7 percent. The citywide average apartment rental rate is $1,153, as of the second quarter of 2023, is a 2.9 percent rent increase from Q2 2022. The city’s Q3 2023 average rent is slightly above the countywide average of $1,066, and the Single-Family Residences
Sale Price Range 1 BD 2 BD 3 BD 4+ BD Total % Total
Less than $550,000 1 8 110 48 167 97.7%
$550,000-$599,999 0 0 3 1 4 2.3%
$600,000-$649,999 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
$650,000 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total, SFR Sales 1 8 113 49 171 100.0%
% of Total 0.6% 4.7% 66.1% 28.7% 100.0%
Median Sale Price n.a. $261,000 $350,000 $381,000 $360,000 Average Sale Price n.a. $258,625 $354,239 $398,255 $361,711 Average Living Area (sq. ft.) n.a. 1,154 1,498 1,961 1,608 Average Lot Size (sq. ft.) n.a. 7,656 12,746 7,609 11,004 Average Price per Living sq. ft. n.a. $226 $242 $210 $234 Condominium
Sale Price Range 1 BD 2 BD 3 BD 4+ BD Total % Total
Less than $400,000 0 0 4 1 5 100.0%
$400,000-$499,999 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
$500,000 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total, Condominium Sales 0 0 4 1 5 100.0%
% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
Median Sale Price n.a. n.a. $325,000 $350,000 $335,000
Average Sale Price n.a. n.a. $333,750 $350,000 $337,000 Average Living Area (sq. ft.) n.a. n.a. 1,453 2,247 1,611 Average Lot Size (sq. ft.) n.a. n.a. 4,986 2,945 4,578
Average Price per Living sq. ft. n.a. n.a. $239 $156 $222 Page 486 of 595 37 vacancy rate is below the county rate of 3.1 percent; nevertheless, this 3.1 percent rate is indicative of a strong apartment rental market in Merced County. CoStar reports no new multifamily rental units completed since Q2 2022, and none currently under construction. Unit absorption in Atwater has been modest since 2013. Countywide, CoStar reports 119 new units delivered from Q3 2022 through Q2 2023, with an additional 238 units under construction.

Table 20: CoStar Multifamily Residential Overview, 2Q 2023 Note:
(a) Market-rate units only.

Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.

Retail Market Overview
Retail in Atwater is primarily concentrated in three nodes: adjacent to State Highway 99 near the Applegate Road exit, along or near Bellevue Road, and Downtown along or near Broadway.

The largest shopping center (by far) in Atwater is the Applegate Ranch Shopping Center at Applegate Road and Route 99, containing both a Walmart Supercenter and a Super Target, along with numerous other retailers in a power center configuration totaling approximately 470,000 square feet. Also at this retail node is the nearby Atwater Gateway Center, anchored by Tractor Supply.

Bellevue Road is home to several older centers anchored by supermarkets or second-generation replacement stores. Centers include the Atwater Plaza Shopping Center, Five Corners Crossings, Atwater Marketplace, Atwater Town Center, and the Atwater Shopping Center. Anchor tenants include Food 4 Less and Walgreens, Sams Foods Supermarket and Rite-Aid, Big Lots (in a former Kmart space), SaveMart and CVS, and a 99 Cents Only store.

City of Merced
Multifamily Summary Atwater County
Inventory, Q2 2023 (all unit sizes) (a) 2,712 13,642
% of Units 19.9% 100.0%
Average Unit Size (sq. ft.) 1,037 890
Vacant Units 45 424
Vacancy Rate 1.7% 3.1%
Average Rents, Q2 2022 - Q2 2023 (per unit)
Average Rent, Q2 2022 $1,120 $1,066
Average Rent, Q2 2023 $1,153 $1,084
% Change Q2 2022 - Q2 2023 2.9% 1.7%
Net Absorption
Ten-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2013 - Q2 2023 104 648 One-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 (9) 21 New Deliveries (units), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 0 119
Under Construction (units), Q2 2023 0 238 Page 487 of 595 38 Downtown Atwater is home to a mix of small independent retailers and service businesses along Broadway and nearby streets. The City has undertaken efforts to enhance “Old Town Atwater,” including the 2009 Atwater Downtown Revitalization Strategy; work on this strategy is ongoing.9 Overall, CoStar reports approximately 1.7 million square feet of retail space in Atwater, out of a total of 12 million square feet countywide (see Table 21). Vacancies are limited, at only 1.6 percent of the inventory in Atwater and 3.1 percent in Merced County. Average triple net asking rents in Atwater have increased 40 percent since 2013, from $12.17 to $17.06 per square foot in 2Q 2023.

Asking rents for the county run slightly higher, reaching an average of $17.28 per square foot triple net in 2Q 2023. Both the city and the county exhibit net positive absorption of space in the last year and the last decade. CoStar shows very limited recent retail construction activity in Atwater, and approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space either completed or under construction in the last year countywide.

Table 21: CoStar Retail Market Overview, Q2 2023
Sources: CoStar, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Office Real Estate Market Overview
Echoing the data on employment by major industry, CoStar data indicates that the office market in Atwater is somewhat limited, with a total reported inventory of about 340,000 square feet, out of a total of 3.6 million square feet in Merced County.

In Atwater, office uses are scattered throughout the city, and the city’s zoning allows office uses for properties in the following categories:
9 https://www.atwater.org/downtown-revitalization/
City of Merced
Retail Summary Atwater County
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 1,690,357 12,028,975 Vacant Stock (sq. ft.) 26,584 387,102
Vacancy Rate 1.6% 3.1%
Avg. Asking NNN Rents
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2013 $12.17 $13.08 Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2023 $17.06 $17.28 % Change, Q2 2013 - Q2 2023 40.2% 32.1%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2013 - Q2 2023 107,315 686,692 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 26,067 39,530 New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 1,794 35,310 Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 0 65,425 Page 488 of 595 39 • Office Commercial
• Central Commercial District
• Downtown Business District
• General Commercial District
• Business Park District Overlay (Mixed Use District)
The business park district designation provides zoning focused on encouraging more concentrated office uses on a larger scale than other areas, such downtown.

Office vacancies are extremely low at less than one percent, and the lack of available space results in no reported average asking gross rent for the city, although historically it appears that average rents are below those for the county. Office space in Atwater and Merced County has shown limited absorption and no inventory growth in the last year; the county has actually seen net negative absorption of office space for the most recent four quarters reported.

Table 22: CoStar Office Market Overview, Q4 2022
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.

Industrial Real Estate Market Overview
Industrial development in Atwater is concentrated in the southern portions of the city, with a large cluster of properties to the south of Highway 99 and east of the Applegate Ranch Shopping Center.

Other industrial uses, including the Teasdale Latin Foods facility, are found between the Union Pacific rail line and Highway 99. Much of the city south of Highway 99 is zoned for manufacturing, industrial and business park uses, along with some areas near the airport and in the westernmost areas of the city north of Highway 99. The city has three zones where industrial development is allowed:

City of Merced
Office Summary Atwater County
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 337,762 3,588,724
Vacant Stock (sq. ft.) 2,250 97,098
Vacancy Rate 0.7% 2.7%
Avg. Asking Gross Rents
Avg. Asking Gross Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2013 $9.83 $12.06 Avg. Asking Gross Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2023 n.a $21.05
% Change, Q2 2013 - Q2 2023 n.a 74.5%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2013 - Q2 2023 14,566 295,665 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 6,092 (31,720) New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 0 0
Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 0 0

40 • Business Park Overlay
• Light Industrial
• Heavy Industrial
CoStar reports approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing industrial space in Atwater, and 12.0 million in Merced County overall, as shown in Table 23. Vacancies for industrial space are extremely low, at 1.0 percent for Atwater and 2.3 percent for the county. The strong local market in Atwater is also shown through the relatively high average asking rents, at $12.00 per square foot, or twice the countywide average. The low Atwater vacancy rate and high rent levels may be due in part to a constrained supply, with little increase in the inventory and limited absorption since 2013. Over the same period, the county has seen absorption of almost 700,000 square feet. The county has shown very little new industrial space developed or under development since mid-2022; Atwater shows no additions to the industrial space inventory over the same period. The net absorption since 2013 as a percent of total industrial space is of the same order of magnitude as the limited gains in manufacturing employment.

Table 23: Industrial Market Overview, Q3 2023
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.

City of Merced
Industrial Summary Atwater County
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 1,174,741 12,010,172 Vacant Stock (sq. ft.) 11,372 281,264
Vacancy Rate 1.0% 2.3%
Avg. Asking NNN Rents
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2013 $3.00 $3.14
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q2 2023 $12.00 $5.99
% Change, Q2 2013 - Q2 2023 300.0% 90.8%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2013 - Q2 2023 1,728 699,806 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 (6,372) 34,835 New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2022 - Q2 2023 0 0
Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q2 2023 0 15,000 Page 490 of 595 41 FISCAL CONDITIONS
This section provides an overview of the City’s fiscal condition, focusing on revenue and expenditure trends for the General Fund.

General Fund Balance
General Fund revenues and expenditures vary annually based on the changing conditions in the city.

The majority of revenue generated within Atwater is attributed to property and sales taxes, while General Fund expenditures are primarily associated with police and fire services. Figure 6, below, shows City of Atwater General Fund revenues and expenditures from Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 through FY 2023-24.

Historically, General Fund revenues have exceeded expenditures, resulting in fiscal surpluses. As seen in Figure 6, annual General Fund revenues in Atwater have fluctuated between $14.2 and $19.4 million over the past several years. From FY 17-18 through FY 2021-22 revenues increased, and since then revenues have declined slightly or are projected to decline slightly, to $19.4 million in FY 2023-24.

Over the same seven-year period, General Fund expenditures have also fluctuated, with expenditures declining from $13.4 million in FY 201718 to $12.0 million in FY 2018-19, and then increasing each year and projected to reach $22.3 million in FY 2023-24.

Figure 6: General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Trends, FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24 Sources: City of Atwater Finance Department, City Budgets, 2023; BAE, 2023. $14.2 $14.2
$15.4
$18.9
$20.1 $18.6 $19.4
$13.4
$12.0
$13.0
$15.2
$14.2
$18.3
$22.3
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 (Amended)
FY 2023-24
(Budget)
General Fund Revenue ($ in Millions) General Fund Expenditures ($ in Millions)

42 General Fund Revenues
The following section profiles the various sources of General Fund revenue to highlight specific revenue categories in the Atwater General Fund budget.

General Fund Revenue by Type
The City of Atwater relies on a mix of revenue sources to support its General Fund. As illustrated in Figure 7, the primary revenues assumed in the FY 2023-24 budget are taxes, with property tax and sales tax together providing over half of General Fund revenues. The other significant source of revenue is charges for services, which provide more than one-fourth of the General Fund revenue.

The remaining revenues include but are not limited to other taxes, intergovernmental transfers, and miscellaneous revenues.

Figure 7: General Fund Revenue Sources, FY 2023-24
Sources: City of Atwater Finance Department, City Budgets, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Tax Revenue
Taxes are the primary source of funding for Atwater’s General Fund, projected to account for nearly two-thirds of the total revenue in FY 2023-24 (see Table 24). Of the taxes that the City anticipates Property Tax,
$6,742,300
Sales Tax,
$5,155,902
Franchise Tax,
$679,737
Business License
Tax, $223,600
Transient
Occupancy Tax,
$33,274
Property Transfer
Tax, $110,000
License & Permits,
$309,125
Intergovernmental,
$945,290
Charges for
Services,
$4,657,964
Fines & Forfeitures …
Miscellaneous
Revenue, $308,533 Transfers-In,
$202,375

43 accruing, sales and use taxes are the largest source of revenue ($3,932,988), while motor vehicle in-lieu tax ($3,315,123) and secured-roll property tax ($2,480,100) represent the second and third largest share of revenue. Transient occupancy tax, collected from overnight visitors by lodging places, is a relatively small source of General Fund revenue. Given Atwater’s location along State Route 99, additional lodging development may represent an opportunity for further revenue diversification.

Table 24: General Fund Revenue – Taxes, FY 2023-24
Sources: City of Atwater, City Finance Department; BAE, 2023.

Property Tax Allocation Factors by TRA
Property taxes are a critical source of revenue for the City. Figure 8 shows the proportion of the one percent ad valorem property tax that flows to either the City General Fund or the Fire District for different tax rate areas (TRAs) in Atwater. The TRA tax share for Atwater properties falls in two ranges. As shown, TRAs covering most of the city provide between 31 percent and 32 percent of the total one percent tax rate to the city, but some peripheral areas, representing more recent annexations, only provide between 17 percent and 18 percent based on revenue sharing agreements with Merced County. For a given type of development, it will generally be more fiscally beneficial for the City to focus that development in areas where the City receives the highest share of the new property tax revenue.

BAE also considered the potential property tax revenue that would flow to the City for parcels within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that could potentially annex to the City for future development. Based General Fund Revenue - Taxes
Category Number Percent
Sales & Use Tax $4,426,700 35.7%
Sales & Use Tax-Public Safety $199,202 1.6%
Business License Tax $220,000 1.8%
Franchise Tax $679,737 5.5%
Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Tax $3,690,000 29.7% Property Tax , Current Secure $2,800,000 22.6%
Property Tax, Current Unsecure $175,000 1.4%
Property Tax, Prior Secured $300 0.002%
Property Tax, Prior Unsecure $2,000 0.02%
Property Tax, Supplemental $50,000 0.4%
Property Tax, Miscellaneous $3,000 0.02%
Property Tax, Homeowner Exempt $18,000 0.1%
Transient Occupancy Tax $33,274 0.3%
Document Stamp Tax $110,000 0.9%
Total Revenue, All Taxes $12,407,213 100.0% Page 493 of 595 44 on the City-County master revenue sharing agreement from 2017, the City would receive 25 percent of the General Fund property tax increment that would otherwise be allocated to the Merced County General Fund in these areas, while the County would continue to receive 100 percent of the share from the property tax base as of the date of annexation. The County Fire District would also continue to receive 100 percent of its base allocation, while the Atwater Fire District would receive 100 percent of the increment. These allocations of property tax would provide the City with a share of the tax increment roughly equivalent or marginally above the 17 percent to 18 percent from recent annexations, depending on the particular TRA in question. Much of the unincorporated area in the SOI is currently in agricultural uses, and the tax increment as the area is developed is likely to end up providing the majority of the overall property value and tax generation. In any case, the ability of the City’s share of property taxes from potential annexations along with other funding sources to support the services required in that area should be evaluated carefully for any annexations under consideration.

45 Figure 8: Property Tax Allocation Factors, City of Atwater Sources: Esri; County of Merced

46 General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are anticipated to be $22.3 million, of which Police and Fire constitute the largest shares, as shown in Figure 9. Police account for 28 percent, or $6.3 million of the total expenses, with Fire services at 19 percent, or $4.2 million. Community Development expenditures are budgeted at 11 percent ($2.5 million) of the General Fund total, miscellaneous non-department expenses at $2.9 million and the Finance department at $1.4 million. In descending order, the remaining expenses are Operating Transfers Out, Parks, City Administration/City Clerk, Human Resources, Recreation & Community Events, City Council, and City Treasurer.

Figure 9: General Fund Expenditure Sources, FY 2023-24
Sources: City of Atwater Finance Department, City Budgets, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Fiscal Considerations
With the exception of the proposed budget for the current fiscal year, Atwater’s General Fund has maintained a positive annual balance, allowing the City to build a reserve that even with this year’s imbalance remains at 25 percent. Revenues and expenses have both increased gradually over the last several years. The substantial reserve could assist the City during any future periods of declining revenues and/or increasing expenses. The City should carefully assess the fiscal impacts of any annexation to ensure that the cost to provide services to the new areas does not exceed the revenue generated by the annexation. Given that Police and Fire services consume more than half of the City General Fund revenues, particular attention should be paid to the needs for expansion of these services in areas that the updated General Plan Land Use Element would plan for growth. Typically, providing services to infill development is more efficient than for newly annexed properties.

Considering the more limited property tax allocated to the City from annexed properties this suggests Police,
$6,306,867
Fire, $4,156,118
Community
Development,
$2,529,826
NonDepartmental
Miscellaneous,
$2,930,217
Finance,
$1,354,332
Human
Resources,
$795,930
Parks, $821,458
City
Administration /
City Clerk,
$796,902
Operating
Transfers Out,
$1,935,114
Other ,
$694,646

47 the City could benefit from focusing new development as much as possible within infill areas where the City receives more robust property tax shares.

48 PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH
This section provides a discussion of future population and employment growth in Atwater and Merced County. The discussion reviews the following population and employment projections:
• California Department of Finance’s (DOF’s) Demographic Research Unit’s Interim Projections • Long-Term Socio-Economics Forecasts by County from Caltrans • Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan DOF’s projections were released in July 2023 and incorporate 2020 Census data and more current estimates from DOF. These are county- and state-level population projections only and go out to 2060. Statewide estimates show California population stagnating long-term, with some decades showing population declines, a reversal of long term historic growth trends.

The Caltrans estimates were released in March 2023, and also incorporate 2020 Census data.

Numerous variables are covered, including population, employment, households, net migration, income, and employment by major industry group. Projections are available out to 2050.

The MCAG projections for the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) were developed prior to the release of 2020 Census data and provide estimates of population and total employment through 2040.

Future Population Growth
Overall and as discussed above, Atwater and Merced County have shown population and household growth in recent years. However, since 2020, estimates indicate that growth has stalled for Atwater, while the county continues to see population growth. The projections series considered here vary considerably regarding future growth; DOF shows population increasing to 329,168 in 2040 (despite statewide trends of no estimated growth), with Caltrans projecting a 2040 population of 334,620, and MCAG projecting 346,085 by 2040 (see Table 25). Given that Caltrans and DOF have provided more recent updates and incorporate the 2020 Census, their projections may more accurately reflect long-term patterns. Assuming Atwater mirrors county trends and maintains a constant percentage of the countywide population as estimated by DOF, Atwater is projected to grow gradually from 31,751 in 2020 to approximately 37,000 persons in 2050. This would roughly translate to a 16 percent increase in population, households, and housing unit demand.

49 Table 25: Population and Employment Projections
Notes:
(a) Atwater 2020 population from Table 1. Future population estimates based on city share of DOF-projected county population at 11 percent, which is approximately the ratio in 2023; this ratio has been relatively constant over the 2010 through 2023 period.

Future estimates for Atwater rounded to nearest 100.
(b) 2020 and future employment estimates based on city share of jobs based on ratio of jobs in city to jobs in county in 2022 as shown in Table 9. Estimates rounded to nearest 100.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF) Report P-2A; Merced County Association of Governments 2022 Regional Transportation Plan; Caltrans Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County, 2022; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023; BAE, 2023.

Future Job Growth
Since population growth to some extent drives job growth, and the MCAG projections of population appear high in light of 2020 Census figures, the employment growth estimated by Caltrans may better forecast job growth in Merced County. As shown in Table 25, Caltrans projects 17.8 percent growth in employment between 2020 and 2050, to a total of approximately 96,000 jobs, with most of this growth occurring by 2030. Assuming that Atwater maintains a constant share of Merced County jobs, employment in the city would reach 8,900 jobs in 2050, or about a 13 percent increase in jobs and non-residential real estate demand. It should be noted that this estimate for Atwater is based on a model trending out current conditions, and while macroeconomic conditions strongly influence regional trends, City actions with respect to economic development, land use, and other factors could influence the future of job creation in Atwater.

In addition to providing estimates of overall county employment, Caltrans projections allocate these jobs by major industry groups, as shown in Table 26. Caltrans projects that overall, employment growth in Merced County will lag California overall, with county job growth at 17.8 percent and statewide job growth at 24.1 percent between 2020 and 2050. County employment will continue to be dominated by jobs in the government, farm, and health and education employment sectors, with the top three sectors statewide being health and education, professional services, and government.

The county proportion of jobs will continue to be particularly low relative to the state in the professional services sector as well as financial activities and information. In absolute numbers the largest employment gains in the county between 2020 and 2050 are projected to be in health and County % Change % Change % Change
Population 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050 Merced County
DOF 280,909 311,578 329,168 336,170 10.9% 5.6% 2.1%
Caltrans 280,873 309,756 334,620 352,891 10.3% 8.0% 5.5% MCAG RTP 284,761 314,690 346,085 na 10.5% 10.0% na
Atwater (a) 31,751 34,300 36,200 37,000
County
Employment
Caltrans 81,120 91,804 93,622 95,589 13.2% 2.0% 2.1%
MCAG RTP 80,882 95494 105,544 na 18.1% 10.5% na
Atwater (b) 7,600 8,600 8,700 8,900 Page 499 of 595
50 education, government, and leisure (which includes arts, recreation, and hospitality). These projections indicate that the overall economic base of Merced County will remain similar over time, with agriculture and related industries continuing to be a key component of the economy.

Table 26: Employment by Industry Projections
Notes:

Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work on an annual average basis. Does not include self-employed persons not on payroll.

Sources: Caltrans Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County, 2022; BAE, 2023.

Merced County
Major Industry Sector Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Private Sector
Farm 14,210 17.5% 15,282 16.0% 1,072 7.5%
Construction 3,060 3.8% 3,696 3.9% 636 20.8%
Manufacturing 9,700 12.0% 9,589 10.0% (111) -1.1%
Transportation, Utilities 3,610 4.5% 4,770 5.0% 1,160 32.1% Wholesale & Retail Trade 9,360 11.5% 9,802 10.3% 442 4.7% Financial Activities 1,830 2.3% 1,884 2.0% 54 3.0%
Professional Services 3,740 4.6% 4,651 4.9% 911 24.4%
Information 230 0.3% 109 0.1% (121) -52.4%
Health & Education 10,320 12.7% 14,417 15.1% 4,097 39.7% Leisure 5,330 6.6% 7,666 8.0% 2,336 43.8%
Government 18,400 22.7% 21,775 22.8% 3,375 18.3%
Unclassified 1,330 1.6% 1,947 2.0% 617 46.4%
Total Employment (c) 81,120 100.0% 95,589 100.0% 13,852 17.8% California
Major Industry Sector Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Private Sector
Farm 407,000 2.5% 425,499 2.1% 18,499 4.5%
Construction 857,000 5.2% 963,681 4.7% 106,681 12.4%
Manufacturing 1,264,000 7.6% 1,293,873 6.3% 29,873 2.4% Transportation, Utilities 732,000 4.4% 1,139,190 5.5% 407,190 55.6% Wholesale & Retail Trade 2,170,000 13.1% 2,340,120 11.4% 170,120 7.8% Financial Activities 818,000 4.9% 849,182 4.1% 31,182 3.8% Professional Services 2,600,000 15.7% 3,206,576 15.6% 606,576 23.3% Information 536,000 3.2% 651,323 3.2% 115,323 21.5%
Health & Education 2,737,000 16.5% 3,786,644 18.4% 1,049,644 38.4% Leisure 1,484,000 8.9% 2,432,950 11.8% 948,950 63.9%
Government 2,493,000 15.0% 2,817,898 13.7% 324,898 13.0% Unclassified 497,000 3.0% 691,054 3.4% 194,054 39.0%
Total Employment (c) 16,595,000 100.0% 20,597,990 100.0% 3,808,936 24.1% 2020 2050 Change 2020-2050
2020 2050 Change 2020-2050

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

May 13, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approving and Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Adoption of Resolution No. 3457-24 approving and adopting the Fiscal Year 2024-25 annual list of projects funded by SB 1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017; and authorizes and directs the Interim City Manager to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the California Transportation Commission.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was passed in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. The Bill includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure our residents are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year.

SB 1 funding will help the City maintain and rehabilitate streets/roads, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City. The City is estimated to receive $812,583 from SB 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25. The City Council is required to adopt a list of projects by resolution, identifying a description and location of each proposed project, along with a proposed schedule for completion and estimated useful life of the improvements, and upload the list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) prior to July 1, 2024.

Staff identified the following projects for FY 2024-25:
• FY 24/25 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement • FY 24/25 Traffic Signals Maintenance and Repairs
• FY 24/25 Pavement Markings and Signage Maintenance
• FY 24/25 Pavement Repairs

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Tyler Button
John Cale Brian Raymond

Agenda Report - Approving and Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

• Olive Avenue Reconstruction
II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

The City will receive an estimated $812,583 in RMRA funding in FY 2024-25.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goal numbers one (1) and two (2) of the City's 2020-2025 Strategic Plan: to ensure the City's continued financial stability and to improve public safety, respectively.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item was routed and reviewed by all departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed action is categorically exempt under the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed action and listed projects involve the operation, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities with negligible or no expansion of use. with construction of minor appurtenant structures involving negligible or no expansion of use and no possibility of significantly impacting the physical environment. Accordingly, the proposed action qualifies under Class 1 Categorical Exemptions (Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines).

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Following approval and adoption of the resolution, City staff will upload the adopted resolution identifying the FY 2024-25 SB 1 Project List to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by July 1, 2024.

Submitted by:

Agenda Report - Approving and Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 3

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Approved by:

Greg Thompson, Interim City Manager
Attachments:

1. 3457-24 Adopting FY 24 25 List of SB1 Funded Projects

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER

RESOLUTION NO. 3457-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER ADOPTING A LIST OF
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of all projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $812,583 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the eighth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate streets/roads, bridges, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year and several of similar projects into the future; and

Resolution No. 3457-24 Page 2
WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an at-risk condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade is expected to help prevent further deterioration to our streets and roads into a worse condition; and WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Atwater, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed projects are hereby approved and will be funded inpart or solely with fiscal year 2024-25 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: FY 24/25 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement
Project Description: Grind, patch, crack seal, and/or replace curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to maintain safe pedestrian facilities, prioritizing school zones Project Location: Locations of reported complaints and logged damages, including but not limited to: Mitchell Ave, Terri Dr, Tamarack Ave, Grove Ave, Quince Ave, Laurel Ave, Cedar Ave, Della Dr, Cindy Dr, Fifth St, Boulder Dr, Sixth St, Palm Ave, Linden Ave, First St, Kadota St, Clark Terrace, Drakeley Ave, Herman, Winton Way, Nutmeg, Fir Ave, Cordelia Dr, Redwood St, Bellevue Rd, Shaffer Rd, Yosemite Ct, Third St, Spruce Ave, Fortuna Ave, Chalet Ct, Nebela Dr, Marguerite, Vine Ave, Mulberry Ave, Village Cir.

Estimated Project Schedule: 07/24 – 06/25
Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 – 25 years
Project Title: FY 24/25 Pavement Markings and Signage Maintenance Project Description: Replace damaged or missing road signs and pavement markings, prioritizing school zones.

Project Location: As needed on Grove Ave, Fifth St, Juniper Ave, Bridgewater St, Shaffer Road, Fruitland Ave, Winton Way, Buhach Rd, Avenue Two, Menlo Ave, High St, Bellevue Rd, Granite Dr, Lake View Dr.

Estimated Project Schedule: 07/24 – 06/25
Estimated Project Useful Life: 1 – 25 years
Project Title: FY 24/25 Traffic Signals Maintenance and Repairs Project Description: Repair failed and/or damaged traffic signal equipment, including but not limited to indicators, pedestrian crossing hardware, internally illuminated street signs, battery backup systems, flashing beacons, and rapid rectangular flashing beacons.

Resolution No. 3457-24 Page 3
Project Location: As needed to address failure or damage at intersections on Bell Ln, Bell Dr, Applegate Rd, Commerce Ave, Sycamore Ave, Atwater Blvd, Winton Way, Olive Ave, Juniper Ave, Bellevue Rd, Fruitland Ave, Seventh St, Linden St, Redwood Ave, First St, Shaffer Rd, Granite Dr, Crest Rd, Buhach Rd, Santa Fe Dr, Avenue Two, Avenue One, Lake Ridge St, Green Sands Ave, Atwater-Merced Expy, Gurr Rd, Broadway Ave, Clover Ave.

Estimated Project Schedule: 07/24 – 06/25
Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 – 25 years
Project Title: FY 24/25 Pavement Repairs
Project Description: Fill potholes/cracks, slurry seal pavements.

Project Location: Areas within City Limits west of Shaffer Rd.

Estimated Project Schedule: 07/24 – 06/25
Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 – 10 years
Project Title: Olive Avenue Reconstruction
Project Description: Reconstruct Olive Avenue pavement, including upgrading curb ramps where required
Project Location: From west of Winton Way to City Limits Estimated Project Schedule: 07/25 – 08/25
Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 years
The foregoing resolution is hereby passed and adopted this 13th day of May 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

May 13, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michael Salvador, Police Chief

PREPARED
BY:

Michael Salvador, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Authorizing and Approving a Cooperative Purchase, Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order) to Montrose Ford for the purchase of one (1) new 2023 Dodge Charger Police Vehicle and
Equipment (Police Chief Michael Salvador)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Authorizes and approves a Cooperative Purchase, Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order), in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Montrose Ford, Akron, Ohio, for the purchase of one (1) new 2023 Dodge Charger Pursuit with Police Equipment, in the combined amount not to exceed $56,100; and authorizes and directs the Interim City Manager or designee to execute the Agreement (Purchase Order) on behalf of the City.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The Police Department currently uses Dodge Charger Pursuit police vehicles as patrol cars. As part of the Department's ongoing program to replace aging public safety vehicles, the Department continuously looks for patrol vehicles that can be procured from a variety of sources. The post-pandemic supply chain issues have hampered the Department's ability to procure patrol vehicles.

Identification, budgeting, and replacement of outdated equipment, prior to the breakdown of equipment, have become goals of the Police Department. The Department was made aware of a source of fully equipped new police vehicles ready for delivery to the department. Montrose Ford is one of the major police vehicle suppliers for the State of Ohio, and they reached out to the department after the Police Chief's attendance at the Government Fleet expo in Dallas, Texas in 2023. The Department has reserved a fully equipped Dodge Charger police vehicle for immediate delivery upon purchase approval.

In accordance with the City of Atwater Purchasing System Manual, Section 9, Procurement Methods, “Cooperative Purchases,” the City may join in purchases and contracts established by other jurisdictions, provided the cooperative agreement is established following a competitive bid process consistent with the City’s competitive

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Tyler Button
John Cale Brian Raymond

Agenda Report - Authorizing and Approving a Cooperative Purchase, Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order) to Montrose Ford for the purchase of one (1) new 2023 Dodge Charger Police Vehicle and Equipment (Police Chief Michael Salvador) Page 2

process. Sourcewell, formerly known as the National Joint Powers Alliance (“NJPA”), a public agency serving as a national municipal contracting agency, released a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the procurement of Vehicles, Cars, Vans, SUV's, and Light Trucks with Related Equipment, Accessories, and Services (EXHIBIT “A”). Montrose Ford is an authorized vendor, Sourcewell number PUR21-208.

Montrose Ford has provided a quotation for one (1) new Dodge Charger Pursuit (EXHIBIT “B”).

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding for the Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order) for the vehicles is available in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget, Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax, Machinery and Equipment Account No. 0004-2021-6021.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goal numbers one (1) and two (2) of the City's Strategic Plan: to ensure the City's continued financial stability and to improve public safety, respectively.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all necessary departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is not considered a project as defined under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code as this action would not directly or reasonably indirectly significantly impact the physical environment.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Staff will prepare a Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order) for the purchase of the one (1) Dodge Charge Pursuit and coordinate delivery with Montrose Ford.

Submitted by:

Agenda Report - Authorizing and Approving a Cooperative Purchase, Purchase Agreement (Purchase Order) to Montrose Ford for the purchase of one (1) new 2023 Dodge Charger Police Vehicle and Equipment (Police Chief Michael Salvador) Page 3

Michael Salvador, Police Chief
Approved by:

Greg Thompson, Interim City Manager
Attachments:

1. RFP and Addendums-Autos SUVs 091521 (Exhibit A)

2. 5PS088 2023 CHARGER PURSUIT AWD V6 - ATWATER (Exhibit B)

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $


+,-./012342. +567589.,:+.-+:-:8;<8.. =>?.. ;@A>B>CDEFGH.87IGH.IJKGH.JKL.<[email protected][email protected]. ;OOFGG>?DFG . -?>S>[email protected]?.23H.4042H.VUW0.SXBXH.YFKA?JE.9DBF..  


 
 
Z[!!

 
 $
!!
! !"


* 

)

!$ *
*


Z







 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


 


! 
! !$



!Z


\
 * !$(!


 * !$ (!
!
"%

!"

Z$
!! 
%$%"
 
!
]^
"
 
!
!
!*
Z
  $
!!
 !"
%*
 $!

 "!%
!"
 
 !"_ ! " Z

*\
Z %
)

Z

*


 !Z

!"
!%



!
  `%*
a*
*
 

^!$
bc!\*
*




"%

$%%

 

!
 
!
""
*


 "
!
 % !
*

 

  da *_! &
 !" *
*


!

!
"" 
8>EDODAJAD>K.8ONFL@EF. 

e

Z


%"af g
\h
 
f ^*
*

_
!Z!a 
$


 


a  
_! &f i


!




!j "!a
*h
 

da *
_! & -?>S>[email protected] 8FSAFBCF?.23H.4042
da *
_! & # 
*
!

!

!
"" 
c*!!$a
*

 

la *
_! &



!mnc*!!$o. 

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $
+,- ./012340156787993 3
:
;

<(=(## 

3
 
 
>?!!

 
 $
!!
! !"


*  "
!"% 

>%
 
>?!!

 @?!!

 
 



!

A% >  
 
**


 
! !"
!   "*


>
%!>
>

B * * !$!
 

%
!"
 
 !"< ! " 

C


 
!*


 
*
%
 
>?!!

   !"*



!>


< ! " ! " $!

 !"


!

* *
%
!$



!
>
%%

C
 * !$(!
 *

)
*!
*
"


 !"

3 
<

* *
%
!$*
"
* * !$!
 !"

**
!
" "!
  >>!
 !"%*

>
!"*
%
!$

% 

!
 


!$
 



 

* !
%
%*
%
!$

* 


!%*
%
!$ 


>%
%*!
 
!$

 
! !"
! D* !"!$% %
> 
! "

**
C*
! *


>!"


 




 
E
"* >

%



!
 
%

$%%% *
*



%





" 3F:

(;
(

#&GHI<;H&
<&
 
G!%
!"
 



C

! 
    >


JK L:"  !"
 $
!!!

M L:<


!

 !"

!
* 
%
M L:("
 
!


* 
M L:NE
 !"%$%"
 
!!
M L:& $
!!!
M L:

!
!*
>!
M !" L:;%*
!
 
G!< ! "


C

! 
    >


JK L:
!  !"
 $
!!"* !

!


 $!


"

 

!








!

 !"
  $!
M L:
$
! 

 
"

 !"
%>


>
!* $
!!

!* 
$ !O 
!


%


"

 !"*
JE>
!""  "
% %
 !"

 
 !
>"

?
P

@%

%

"
!

"
!
"
!
 "
%<

>< $ J
("
!
!
&

!

; 
 !"=!!*$A


 !J
*
 
!
!J
!"

!
"J
!


>%*"!$!
M Q


!
P
RE
SE
%
 
>P  
T* !
>

!!$ !"I! 



 

!;>>

!% >
>%
 
>P   !"* * !$U

"
!

%
*
""!

>
G!!
 * !%

 
!
 * * !$!J

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $
+,-
!
*
 
!

$
!!!*


 !"
%!
%  
!"
 
!
".%
!
%

$%
!
%*!
/ +,0

1%

 0
!* 

1 2
03 !"%*
!" 

 
!
40
52
!* 

  "!


!


%


 !"%

* 
3 !" 0

52
!* 


!



%


 !"%

* 
3



 !"
% $
!!  $!
$


%


! 
0
5 !"0

5

1

$
! 

 
"


%1


1
!* $
!!

%

 
"

*
.61
!""  "
% % !"

 
!



 !. 
*
 
!
!.
!"

!
".
!


1%*"!$!

 !
"!$
!
"
*
!"

 
!



' % !

 
!
1

 0
!* 
27

073


 
!
10 !
 0
!* 
270073
#
  
%





 
!
10
!* 
8! 
27#
087
9
"!$% 

1&

!
 !"8  3
:
 

 " 
!
10
!* 
2;:
0<3
 " 
!
1!(" "=
 !"0
!* 
2;(=0<3
0
!* 
 :1

!" !"#  "
2;0:#<3

!
!
1:>
!
'0
!* 
2;
:>0<3
 :
%?
&



 
!
1-

!
27:?&-73 !"%

0 * !
 .!
" !
61
6*
1 $!
1
- ! " !*
!
 !" 

 
 
!$
1
!
!"
 
 !"- ! " ! * !$(!



@
 
2!
4%
  1
 %

!.34%*
4

6!$


61
6 !"

 $!.6
 


 * !$(!
.* . 


! ")
*!
*
"





%

$%  *
%

"

"".
%
! "

** * !$(!. .)

 ""
! 


!"
!
 "
 *
%



1


! 



! . !" * !$(!
 !%$%

 !
 )
*!
*
"





 1

%


 
&
 * !$(!
@!"




".*

%
*
!

1 

 
!
**

!

!
"!$%

=!%
!"
 
 %
 6*

! "* !
!
1
*

6*

!$ 


1
1*
 
!    %
!


!
1%

 
!*


 AABC DEFAGAHIHAEJKLMHIAFDK ,
8#
&=8:
6>
(N
8#=-=&&=8: &%

 !"
!   "*



 



!
6
"

 
!/ !!$% 

 

'!$)
*!
*
"





% %$! )
!

1%

*
1 %

 !"%  

!."
"
 )
". 
!"

.
 !" "
 

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $+
,-
(.
(
&(/(.
01(2&

3/
4&

3

(
04(
 
0
5*"% *
*



66 "  7
6)
*!
*
"





 
 *
 !"% 
% !% %7

"
"! 7
66
 
!$$
!! !7
 
%

"


 $
! 

*  

-



'!$*
*


6







 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"



!
"!$

!

"
8 
-%

6%6

!$7*
 !"

6 
!
8 - 



8!



* 

* 


*

" !
 !"6
9
:; -
*

7%
8

9 
$%"
7
 !"% 7"
7; -  !
8*

!$ !" $
; - &
'
8$%"
7
% 6
!
%9)

!
 !"
!
!; !" - %

6% 
"
"!



!

 < 

%
*6!$ "
$!"6


67 ** 
!



%
)
*!
$%!$
%!

$7
 !" 


 
-" !$
6%
78
=!$!7*

!
"
!!
! !!  



!
! 
 $

*
* !

$

%7"
 ! 6

 !" *
"



!
;=
 !$
 $

!6$
 
!

" !
*
!

 !" 
; !"
=
*
! )
*!
66!$
 
-
*


 7!
" ")
*!
 





**

* 

 !"


 %5!% %



!
  !!"! *

!
6%
*
!
 
- &%


 
!"

!
!
"%

)
*!
*
"






"
!"  $

!
""!
! 

!7 ! !"7

8 
-
 ! !"($!71" & !
*
%

%
 "()
*!
 



!"

**
>
 

?=; -6$%!$**  

%
 "()
*!




 !"

**
>
  ?
?=; -4

+9?4%


%
 "()
*!




 !"

>
 @  =; "-
%

,


%
 "





**

 

 !"

>
 @  =; !"
 -(%

**7()
*! !"
 "

>
 +
= 
A! 7
%



!
6
 * !$(!
 
!9'7



!

*
"!$  
! 
!
6)
*!
*
"

 !"


"7
 !"!
  
!
 *
*7
* !$
 

B

)
*!
*
"


!7



!
 7 **
* 6



!
% * !$(!
*



% 7
%!9%


%

$%
 %"9 * 7
! 



*
*7!
  !"!$

* 
!%)
*!
*
"

!$ *
*

" 

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $

*+


**
% *
" 




+
*
!
,+
%)
*!
 *
"


 !"

*
""
!" 

!$
! -+*
*


!
"!$% )
*!
*
"


 !"


+



" ,!

%*
*



 

"!+,  !
""


" 
!
*
*

-+*
*

)

%


+"




" 

 






! 


*
"%)
*!
*
"






%*
*



 ""

%
%)
*!
*
"




*
""
 * !$(!

 !" "
%!
'
+"




" 




 !"



! 

%    

 * !$(!

!" 

!$
!  

"

%
"
*



!
+)
*!
*
"


 !"

!$ *
*

"
% $
*

$
$ *%   !"
% $
*



.

!
+


! !"+

 * !$(!
 
/0
(1
-
(2(3&
 -
4*"% *
*


% '!
"$
+  ** !"

,
 !" "

 

 !" $
 
!
 !"*



 ! ,
 ' !""

%)
*!
*
"





 
 * !$(!
 

0
+,
)
!

*
*

"


*,%
! ** 
+,
 $
 
,
 !" "


"
 05 
!+
-!"

,
 !" "5 
!
+
!"

,
 !" "


 "!+"% !4* ! 
!
+%
%)
*!
*
"


 !"

*
" )
 !+
!
!

 $
*+
 !
 !"
 "

 03()
*! !"
"


*

")
*! !"*
"



+
!
 
!
"6%

*
*

 ,
++ !

.

)
*!
*
"

+ 

*+ ,!
"!%!$*
*

 705" !"
* 
! 
!

 ,!
"!%*
*


)
*! !" *
"



""
% * !$(!,

* 
!  08  !,9)
*!
*
"




**

 !"




",    !,% 
%!"

,
 !" "
 :
503&-/-&(5/;3&
/&&(
2 

 !* 
% %
+ !,

!$
! <
=+

, 

% !
*
! 
!, 4!

!%  ,
++"
"
!%
!


+

 !" 
 * !$(!
 
(0(
&-2&(5/;3&
/&#
(35

>( ?
"
!*



+
 
! 

%
 " !!
 

+  !

!
+
 
! 


!$+
%

  !* "


5@ 2
!6%+

*
*


 4*"
*
*



*!$

 !* 

!
"  ,
!"% Page 514 of 595

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $+

! ,
-  "".
%

/%



 !"



.
 !0

!$
! 1 !
$
 !" 
23
4(&567#6 

*

8


.
%* 0


.

! 
!% * !$(!
 &%*
*

8
3 '!$ !
%

""
!
 *
*

8
 0
"*
0 

.

 " !
'
 * !$(!



*
*

8


 !"
 * 
5
 9*"% *
*

*

 !" ' !0
!   " 
72::5&5;6#<;6
5:(
&5;6

2<
! 
  ""
*
*


 

%!"
. * !$ (!

*



%

"

%
*!
.)
*!
*
"





%   ** 
%

*
.%

 2
*



%

"!
"  !!.
 
!!
*
*



!

  !!

!
"!.
 
!% 
!
!
""!%*
*





 %$%
.0*
*

8
!.
 
! !" 0)

 . 
!.
 *
*


 !
"!$
*

.%*
*

")
*!
*
"

 2:*!"!$
*
!%
*
!

"! $! $
0


 0!"

$ !=
*
!

!


 $

!
"
*
"%
"

 $
.% )

")
*!
*
"






 * !$(!
 "
 0 
"
! 

 $
0 >2*
*

8
"

!"!$ *
*.
 !%



  * !$(!


!$
!" *

0  ""


!  0 
!
""!% 

!
. *
*

 
???@ABC?D?EF1 1
2
(G
5
(3(6&
 
*
*

"*!$

H
2(%#!I5!$
! $:


!.
<  
$!$

 
! 
!
. %
H1 2JKLMNKOMP1BQKRKLS1
*!$
"
! %!""
*
"



@1( %!

 !" %*
*

8
*

%"T#

U

%T<
! U11 2BMQRMLOVSM1WKXRYZLO1[QYP1DVOV\YS1YQ1DVOMSYQ]1 
"
! *! $"


!.
   
$

*
".!"
 *

%"3 !
. 
8


$$
"
  ,3

-.
%*
"




5!""
="*! $"


!
 ! **"
 !0!

.".!"*
"
$

*!$

*



*
!
 .
*
"!$ !" ! !!$
!*

%"3

%


 !"%
 *!$

!
""!
*
*

 !"*
""%

$%

%
. !0 <
! 

!$.
%

1 Page 515 of 595

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $+
,&%*
*

-
!

."*!

."*
%%$%
*/
%% )
*!
*
"





 0"
  * !$(!01


 *

/


**


  *% 

% !%
! "* ,
 "!

 !"2 ! " !"
 
3
 ** 4 5,2 0
!"
 !" 

*
 !"/
0"
%
 


/ )


!3$
% 


/%*
*

")
*!
*
"


 !"

"" !"
* 
! /

 !!""*
*

!% * !$(!0-

 
!4 

*



%

" 0"!/0 !0


%  67&!
""!%*
*

"*
"


*!$&%
 0!
"


%
!
  
!


*
 !" 
0 !!$

!  !
*
!8!
""!/ 
!
/ !0* 
% *



%


 !"% 
!
%*
 %*
*

""
! 0
*
*



%

" 0"
 !0
!)
"


! !"
 "0%
"


*
!

//"!%*
*

 
9,:;868
&
&8(((
 
*


 .*"
* 0


 ! "!
 /!.% !$/


 /  !$%

!$
! 
&% "!
 /
!
 0 
 "
 *! $
/%
 


 * !$(!
/
 
! ")
*!
*
"





 " "
!$  !" )

 !"
0* 0
!*!3
<4

*!3<48!

  $


 / / 0 ! *  !  
=>?@ABCDEFADG G

*


  "" 
! )
"
.
 
! %

3
  %"* 47!0%


"/ 
!
%*
*

!" 
!
*
*

   /
"



!;
%
/% !$
$!%2
! /
;!!

 $  )
!
 !" !!
 "6


 !"

!

.*
!
% 
! " ;!!

   0

!%*
*

!$"
)
/"/
/
% !"  

! 
&
)

 
"/ 
!
%* 2
! 
 *
*





%(.*
!

 &

2
!"
!



*/ 
!
 %
*
*

7!0%

.*
!
!
" % 
/%*
*






!
!
"" (.*
!


H
,2 0"!/0% //"  !"

! ,2 0!
%)

"
"/ 
!I !"
 ** 
*
")

" !  !$
$
! )




  0"!" 
7!0%

.*
!
% % ! *"0

!
""!%
!  "

!*
""
%  ""

**/

$! 
 

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $+
,- *
*


 
!   "

!$-
%


 
!% 
*
 " .
 

$! !"
!%
! -% 
 

/


"

!
%
!   " .
'" 0
123456064789::0 0
;
(<
==
#>=?(
(?>( 

%
" !
*
! 
!
!< !" 
.*<*
*


!-! 

!% "  !"!
"!%

 
!
%"
-
%

 !"
!%

 

!
 &%*
*


-%

!-!

 
*
! *
*




' )


!
$ "!$%

 !"

/

*
! !$*


,!-
 
! 

%

!
 !
% % $
"-
%


 
!
**

!.%

$%%



!
 

**

!<*
*

 
!-! !" !

*
!  
@;A
(
&,=?

(B
C,?B&D,

?C=
#>=EE
?,>&,=? )


!
$ "!$%





"%

$%%



!
  &%" "!-





!
-)


!

-

!"!%

 
!
%"
 !"
!%



!
 !


)


!


"%

$% ! ""!"

 %


*)


!


 F"!
 
!$ !
 !""!-.!$ !-
 
!
"-
%

")


!
 
)


!

%%
*-
 *
*


$! . "
%





"

!$%
*


C
!

! !""



 --

')


!

)

 !-
 
!
%
 ."
)
-.%*
*

-

*
!"!$
%



!
 
*
!"
)


!


" -%" "! 
>;CC(?C

 .
"-.%

  !.*

%*
*

"
" .

!$ ! ""!"
""!" 

".


 * 
-%
 !"""
 *
! *
*


%

$%%



!
 

 *
!
 . !
!!
!%%".
- !. ""!"  
@-
 *
*

 *"%

$%%



!
 
  ""!"
- !.


 '!
"$".%*
*

.%'!$%
G-
 % ""!"
,
% 
*
!
.
-%*
*


%'-
 !. ""!" %  .% !

"
*
%

 
!"
"  !" 
,- ! ""!"



" - *
*



"
*
*


%



! 
 H,&DC
H%




! !"% !$%*
*

/
*
*


 


 ,?>=E#(&(&%*
*

 !%

 

% !$!%IEJ@,C
K

!
-% Page 517 of 595

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $



!
 

**

!&%*
*




+
*
!

%' %,-./01
2

!
3%



!
 

**

!*
" + 3

!$
*
*

4 !"
*
%
*

1
1 503%*
*

6
*
*


 

%
 % !$"
0789-#(&(
%*
*




+
*
!

: 5; ' !+)
" "<

!


*
*

= 5; '!
"$% ""!" = !" 5;!

%>

"*
*


"%

$%%



!
  !
 % !%
*

1
1  !"
%
!!%

 
!
%"
 
 ?
1;
99
#

/-0

097 

*

6

**
*





"%

$%%



!
  !
 % !%"  !"
*3"!%

 
!
%"
!+
%3

3 *
*






!
%%
!
* *


%

!

!
""+

@ABC?DEFDFGAHG?IJHH?KFB?LC?MFKGJNCECNO?0
%*
*

6



*
!
+
 !

% %*
*


"
!? 
0

!""% *
*


 


33!

*
"%*
*

 !"


 !+


%  + 
&% !"" %  *
*


"+




+ "!"+%



!
 
' 
0!%!
3*

%%



!
 
3

%!


!
3
 %! 

**
*

"!%*
 0 + '
*
P%




*
!"
 !


 

*
!



3 




!
3 *
*


%



!
 

  + $!  
!3 
! 
%*
*

03%*
*

"

!
 
!3 
!  

! 

6


**
*
" 

**
Q"
!"!"
  
&
!

*
3% 
!3
 
! !"
*" 
  $ "!$%


 
!

 3%*
*

%

 !"%


 
!"

!3
 %"* +
%
!



!% *
*


  



!
 

**

! !"$
3
%


 
!
**

!+ 
R%!%



!
 
 *
*




"$ + '!
"$"+ !
%
S"*
! 
3%*
*

 
!$% %!3
 
!
! !"!!% *
*



 !" 
 /+

!$ *
*


*
*

  !
% %!3
 
! *
""




 !" 3
*
*



3 

!3
*
! 
!   " &%




!
3! 
 

 "!$

3 
!3
 
!
$

!"
3
"
)
3 
! 3
 
!   " !" +

<%*
*


"
   +  
(;T(7(
#
99
#
(U
0
(-(7&
 

*




: Page 518 of 595

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $

+,-!


 ! 
* !%%)
!

.%



!
"" !
!
*
!
 !"/" +,0
**
*

/".

!"
! 
!
* +,

"!(!$
% +, " !"
 .
 " 1
.

!$%
*

2
2  
!1 !" 


!
"!
*
!"!$
%


!1%*
*

 3
,
44
#5-&62
5# 


%*
*

" "!
 *
*

 1%" 
*
*

 3
7,4(8-87 
&%4*!!$
.*
*



!"
"
! 1%

$%%



! 
 

. *
*


 "*
1   !%



! 
  .%
*

2
2 

!
 % !%4*!!$
"!%

 
!
%"
 
&
%

.*
*



.1% %



!
 
**

!


 %


9:
90

":&%

 
!
 



  1% !$
90

": .%
*

2
2  !"& 3
;<=>?;@AB@C<DE3@EF3@G@HF3 
,(#
&-48 -
%!!
.


  "
!


! 


*
!
 !"
*
!
 *
*



..!$%

 )
1


!
.)
*!
*
"


 !"


 !" *% %

!1)

"
*. 
!

.

 !"
 * !$ (!
&%  "I
J"
%!

.*
*


% 

"!

 !

1
%!"

.
 * !$(!
 



!
""! "!!$%!

.
! 

  ""! !1 $
1 1!
"%.

!$K +,&%!

. !"$
$ *%
 
!
.K L,
*


!

1

.. 
*%!


!
.)
*!
*
"





.
 * !$(!
M

 L,*
*

M


 !"
!
'


   1
.*
"


**1 !" 
 $
 * !$(!
M !* "!"
 +,&
  

!


 +,&% 


.*
*



 !"%)
*!
*
"










  * !$(!
 %!
!!  !"

 )
!

*.!

 !" $

 

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $

+!,
 
!

"
* 
, *
*


%

"

*,
*

%!
*
!"!$ 
%
-
!




%
 !.'!
"$ 

 
*,

**
*
"
 
/01
-2
3  "2
3 "
%*
*

2
3%

*
*


!,


 
!"
!
 !" )
!

,%

 !"
!

!%%  " ",!"!%

 

 .)

! , 
!
, *
*

  !."
!$% 

! *


 

*

 

!
"
!%,

!$

!$  !"%

( 



!$4
"2 
*.
   !%



!
 35 
6 !,
 !


)
!
   ! !  . !"7 '* 



 8 .

 !"-

 7 '!$ !    
"""

 8 1  !. -*% !"/ "%
,9,,"()
*!

"





   !$ :  ;<;=>?@<AB;C? DEEE? ?
60
9&(
&
91
-
 
!.*

 "
!"%

. *
*



!!$
 ""

"


F
 (G
-

 !"""
%


,,
 "  
%
H(
9 /
G


 *

7HI:8"

!
% 
*
%
**

* ' $

 "!
 % !
 !" " .

F,

!$

F
!

,
!   "2
3
!
!J  " !"


 *".

!
 % !:5 *
6! & *



 $ *
"
 
%! 

$ ",
%

**
!$"

! 
! *

% .)


 J 

!
, *
*

F

!!!
! !" 
*



!
"%,

!$
5 K0&%! 
 ""

 !"*%
!!

,%*

L K0+"!, 
!
,%

 
!.
!
L K0*

 !
,% !, 
L K0+"!, 
!
,% $"*
"
 
%! 

$ ",L K0! .


,%

,
%*

L K0!. ""
! 

**
!$"

! 
!L K0&%
$! 
$! 

,%*



*
! L !" K0


!"!% 

!
,M
2G*%*
%". 
 .3Page 520 of 595

 
  


 

 






 !

 !"#$%&
'
%
 "()
*! !"


   $





% "
!
 ""

%
!
!
" +,
-./&

(
(
(+ &%

"

!




  " !0
! 
 !" *
*

 01"2 
!
!
*
!


!"
! 
!
*

!2!$


 "!$
*


% 
! ! 2 

 !

"
!


**
 ! 


!"
!
 "0%*
*

 0 1" 



%$%
3 4, 5
"20
 !%

  !06
1 !0 !" *
*


"6
1*
*


% "
!

*0%%*


!

2%

6

2

! 

2
"



!
 *
*


%% !% %%



6 -!"*!"!020 !0!2
 
!*
""! *
*

6 +
)
20 !0*
*

% "

!
%)
!

2%



" "


*!""0%
!"
 

7 ! "

 
25!!


 * !$(!08

 
*
!6%
 !
22


%'0*

!!
%
% !% $"% 


6

 !'
*
!

!

% !'
*0
!

!0   

! *

*6 4, 9 

"20 !0!2
 

$
 


!
!

!
!%*
*


 "6 4, 7 20 !0* 
2 *
*

 !""


 !0
*
2%*
*

% !0*
*

6 !"!$
 %
% !
!*
*

6 4,  " 
! 2
!0
!
*
!
*
*


"2
!%
!

2  * !$(!
6 !" 4,  " 
! 

!

*
*


2
!%
!

2 * !$ (!
 
(,+-
:
-&-:;:
::
#
 
  


"!
*
!

%


*
*0
2

 !" 
*

"! 
" !%5!!

 
 



!


 2!$
 
!
 
*


!
"
% !$
 
!
 
*
*
!<

!
2  

!$
! -
%*
*

8

*
!
0
 0"!20 !0"  

"%  
!
"

*
"
*



 

!
" 1

2 
!2
%

2 
! !$% ** 5!!

  

 01*
*


%   '" 
!2"! 
!
!*

%


 ! 0
!%!0 

!

!
"%*


"0%*
*



!2"! 
 *
* 0

 "
  
! ! !2
 
!
!
"!$2! ! 
 !

 *
""0 *
*


!

!
"" "

!"%
 

0"2!
!