Atwater City Council
August 12, 2024

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 85
discussed under criterion project-generated stationary noise sources would be regulated by the AMC. Through compliance with the AMC, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest public airport to the Project site is the Merced County Castle Airport which is 3.4 miles northeast of the site. According to the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012) and the Castle Airport Master Plan (2011), the Project site is located outside of the airport’s Airport Influence Area and is therefore not subject to land use compatibility policies. 37 38 Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
37 County of Merced. (2021). Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed on January 2, 2024, https://www.co.merced.ca.us/406/Airport-Land-Use-Commission 38 County of Merced. (2011). Castle Airport Master Plan. Accessed on January 2, 2024, http://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/env_docs/castle/CAED/Castle_AMP_full.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 86

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide an example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units. A key consideration in evaluating growth inducement is whether the activity in question constitutes “planned growth.” City of Atwater General Plan
The City of Atwater General Plan estimates the capacity of existing residential uses to hold a total of 64,172 people at full buildout of the city’s Planning Area.

U.S. Census Bureau
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Atwater is 32,372 with an average household size of 3.09 in 2022. 39

4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
39 U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. QuickFacts: Atwater city, California. Accessed on January 2, 2024, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/atwatercitycalifornia/PST120222

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 87
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone that requests a land use change from VLDR – Very Low Density Residential to HDR – High Density Residential and a rezone from R-E – Residential Estate to R-3-1.5 – High Density Residential, consistent with the proposed land use designation.

The Project proposes the development of a 25-unit multi-family residential development. Based on an average household size of 3.09, 25 units could generate approximately 77 new residents thereby increasing the city’s population from 32,372 to 32,449.

Overall, the population and housing units generated by the proposed Project would be within the Atwater General Plan projections for Atwater. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant with no structures. The site does not contain any existing housing or residential uses. Since the site does not currently provide housing, future development of the Project site would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing. No impact would occur because of the Project.

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 88

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within Atwater city limits and thus, would receive public services provided by the City of Atwater and will be subject to fees to provide such services, as applicable. Services provided are described as follows.

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in the city are provided by Cal Fire; the City also has a mutual aid agreement with the City of Merced that was established in 1993. The City of Atwater operates two (2) fire stations: Station 41 at 699 Broadway Avenue and Station 42 at 2006 Avenue Two. In 2017, the City updated the Municipal Service Review and cited a response time of less than seven (7) minutes for 90 percent of responses. The Project would be reviewed by Cal Fire and is subject to regulations and standards such as the California Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance, and building use.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services within the city are provided by the Atwater Police Department. The Police Department currently operates from the main police station located at Bellevue Road. The Police Department divides the city into two (2) sectors, north and south. The Police Department reviews all projects to ensure that building and site designs consider utilization of crime prevention features and techniques.

Schools

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 89
Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Atwater Elementary School District and the Merced Union High School District. Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” Parks and Recreation
Park and Recreational facilities are overseen by the Atwater Recreation Department. According to the Atwater General Plan, the City’s park standard is a minimum of 3.0 park acres per 1,000 population. To mitigate any impacts to park and recreational facilities, residential projects may be conditioned by the City to pay the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax in addition to any requirements of the Quimby Act.

4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be served by Cal Fire. Atwater Fire Station 41 is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project’s proximity to the existing fire station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. In addition, Cal Fire will review the Project for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the structures proposed on site. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be served by the Atwater Police Department. The Project site is approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the city’s Police Department. The Project is subject to the Police Facilities Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur. iii. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. Since the Project proposes the development of 25 residential units, the Project is subject to school fees. The development and management of school sites are the responsibility of school districts and elected governing school boards. Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” In addition, the site is planned and zoned for

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 90
residential development and has been previously accounted for in siting school facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
iv. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. The Project proposes residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore increase the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest parks to the Project site include Bloss Park (0.8 miles northeast), Atwater Memorial Ballpark (0.9 miles northeast), Ralston Park (0.9 miles northeast), and Heller Park (0.9 miles north). As a multi-family residential development, the Project would be subject to providing on-site open space pursuant to AMC Section

17.24 in addition to the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax and in-lieu fee requirements to mitigate any potential impacts to municipally owned parks. The Project includes approximately 17,552 sf. of landscaped area throughout the site including two (2) bioretention areas. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project introduces residences to the area, thus increasing the demand for other public services, such as courts, libraries, hospitals, etc., which could result in development or expansion of public facilities. Typical environmental impacts associated with the development of these facilities include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, etc. The expansion of these facilities would be subject to CEQA as they are proposed. In addition, future development would be subject to the payment of the Development Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to these public facilities. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 91

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreational facilities are overseen by the Atwater Recreation Department. According to the Atwater General Plan, the City’s park standard is a minimum of 3.0 park acres per 1,000 population. To mitigate any impacts to park and recreational facilities, residential projects may be conditioned by the City to pay the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax in addition to any requirements of the Quimby Act.

Atwater General Plan
The Atwater General Plan Land Use, Public Facilities and Community Infrastructure Element includes the following objectives and policies related to park and recreational facilities and services:

GOAL LU-23. Develop a comprehensive strategy for parkland acquisition, construction, and maintenance which meets the community’s adopted standards for recreation facilities.

Policy LU-23.1. Strive to maintain or exceed a minimum standard of 3.0 acres of public park land per 1,000 population.

Policy LU-23.2. Ensure that park and recreation facilities are distributed equitably throughout the community.

Policy LU-23.3. Identify areas of the City that are deficient in park and recreational facilities and assign top priority for future park construction to these areas.

Policy LU-23.4. Incorporate park and recreation facilities within the CAADC into the City’s park system, as appropriate.

Policy LU-23.5. Encourage private ownership and operation of park and recreation facilities located within the CAADC that are not incorporated into the City’s system.

4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 92
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. The Project proposes residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore increase the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest parks to the Project site include Bloss Park (0.8 miles northeast), Atwater Memorial Ballpark (0.9 miles northeast), Ralston Park (0.9 miles northeast), and Heller Park (0.9 miles north). As a multi-family residential development, the Project would be subject to providing on-site open space pursuant to AMC Section

17.24 in addition to the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax and in-lieu fee requirements to mitigate any potential impacts to municipally owned parks. The Project includes approximately 17,552 sf. of landscaped area throughout the site including two (2) bioretention areas. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes on-site recreational facilities as described under criterion a). Other than the on-site facilities, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The on-site recreational facilities would be developed in accordance with on-site open space requirements pursuant to AMC Section 17.24. Compliance would ensure that the facilities would not be in an area or be built to a scale that would cause an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 93

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently vacant with no structures. The site contains existing improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, overhead utilities, and streetlights, to its north, east, and south, along Sunset Drive and Matthew Street. Sunset Drive, a two-lane, east-west local road forms the southerly site boundary. Matthew Street, a twolane loop, forms the eastern and northern site boundary. The Project proposes the development of three (3) apartment buildings totaling 25 dwelling units.

CEQA Guidelines
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB743), traffic impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed Project would create on California roads.

If the project adds excessive automobile travel onto roads, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

To implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by adding Section 15064.3. According to Section 15064.3, VMT measures the automobile travel generated from a proposed project (i.e., the additional miles driven).

Here, ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles such as cars and light-duty trucks. If a proposed project adds excessive automobile travel on California roads thereby exceeding an applicable threshold of significance, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

Among its provisions, Section 15064.3(b) establishes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Specifically, Section 15064.3(b) (1) establishes a less than significant presumption for certain land use projects that are proposed

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 94
within ½-mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. If this presumption does not apply to a land use project, then the VMT can be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed.

In the case that quantitative models or methods are not available to the lead agency to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) permits the lead agency to conduct a qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis may evaluate factors including but not limited to the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and construction traffic.

Lastly, Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
SB 743 Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.

The Technical Advisory includes screening thresholds for agencies to use in order to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. • Screening Thresholds for Small Project. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact. This threshold is based on a CEQA categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,00 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. • Map-Based Screening Threshold for Residential and Office Projects. Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. • Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Thresholds. Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 95
• Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development. Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

According to the Technical Advisory, lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) adopted VMT Thresholds and Guidelines in 2022 for seven (7) jurisdictions, including the City of Atwater.

MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines
MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines includes project screening criteria, methodologies for estimating project specific VMT, regional and local thresholds, and VMT mitigation strategies. Similar to the OPR, a project is presumed less than significant with no further VMT analysis necessary if it meets one of the project screening criteria, including • Project is within a Transit Priority Area/High Quality Transit Corridor: within 0.5 miles of a transit stop, consistent with RTP/SCS, FAR >0.75, limited parking, does not reduce the number of affordable housing units.
• Project is a Local-Serving Retail less than 50,000 sf. • Project is a Low Trip Generator: less than 1,000 ADT for projects consistent with the General Plan and less than 500 ADT for projects inconsistent with the General Plan. • Project is 100% Affordable Housing Units.
• Project is Institutional or Government and Public Service Uses. • Project is located in Low VMT Zones.

If the project does not meet any of the screening criteria listed above, the project is subject to further analysis using the MCAG Travel Demand Model (TDM).

Atwater General Plan
The Atwater General Plan establishes a street classification system to categorize roadways and transportation facilities. 40 The classification system is used for engineering design and traffic operation standards. The following roadway classifications are applicable to the Project site, as defined by the General Plan:

Urban Local Roads. These roads provide access to abutting property and link properties to the collector system.

The General Plan identifies the following objective and policy related to analyzing transportation impacts.

GOAL CIRC-1. Maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for City streets and intersections.

Policy CIRC-1.1 Establish and maintain a minimum LOS of D for all arterial and collector streets within the City.
40 City of Atwater. (2000). General Plan. 3. Circulation. Accessed January 4, 2024, https://www.atwater.org/docs/generalplan/CHAPTER_3__CIRCULATION.PDF

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 96
Policy CIRC-1.2. Establish intersection LOS standards when more specific intersection traffic data becomes available.

Policy CIRC-1.3. Design roadway improvements and evaluate development projects using established LOS standards.

Policy CIRC-1.4. Develop the City’s roadway system in conformance with the planned roadway system shown on the Circulation Plan and the City’s adopted cross section standards.

Policy CIRC-1.5. Access for land uses adjacent to Castle Parkway will be provided by frontage roads which parallel the Parkway. Direct access to the Parkway will be limited to the primary east-west corridors in the area.

GOAL CIRC-2 Creation of a comprehensive financing strategy for local roadway improvements.

Policy CIRC-2.1 Consider financing strategies required to implement the “local” traffic portion of the Merced/Atwater Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS).

Policy CIRC-2.2 Provide “fair share” City funding for regional transportation improvements at a level equal to the contribution of Atwater-generated traffic on the roadway or intersection. Seek regional, state, or other funding for improvements whose need is generated by traffic originating outside Atwater.

GOAL CIRC-3 Support efforts to improve vehicular connections between Atwater and the UC Merced access system.

Policy CIRC-3.1 Support efforts to obtain funding for the projects proposed in the MIS and any subsequent documents approved on a regional basis.

Policy CIRC-3-2 Explore improvements to other roadways connecting the City with UC Merced.

GOAL CIRC-4 Creation of new entrances into Atwater north of the Applegate interchange.

Policy CIRC-4.1 Support efforts to implement the projects proposed in the MIS, which includes improvements to the 99/Applegate interchange, extension of Bellevue Road to the west, and the creation of a new interchange at SR 99/Westside Boulevard.

Policy CIRC-4.2 Support the implementation of the Atwater Redevelopment Agency’s Implementation Plan, which includes improvements to the Applegate interchange.

GOAL CIRC-5 Provide sufficient parking for all commercial, industrial, residential, and other uses, either off-street or on-street as appropriate.

Policy CIRC-5.1 Require that all new development provides sufficient on- or offstreet parking to meet the standards of the City’s Zoning Code or any other applicable planning document (such as the Downtown Specific Plan).

GOAL CIRC-8 Provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system which connects residential areas, schools, and commercial areas with parking lots and public transportation.

Policy CIRC-8.1 Require new public and private development and infrastructure projects to include sidewalks or on-site pedestrian features.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 97
Policy CIRC-8.2 Ensure that pedestrian circulation within commercial development projects is considered and that safe walkways separated from parking stalls and drive aisles are provided.

4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all project-level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Compliance is further discussed below. Overall, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and a less than significant impact would occur.

Roadway Facilities
The Project site is a vacant site with existing street improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, overhead utilities, and streetlights, to its north, east, and south boundary of the site, along Sunset Drive and Matthew Street.

Sunset Drive, a two-lane, east-west local road forms the southerly site boundary. Matthew Street, a two-lane loop, forms the eastern and northern site boundary. These roadways are local and not shown on the General Plan Circulation Plan.

While street improvements are existing, the Project would construct new driveway approaches on the east and north boarder of the site per City of Atwater Public Works standards. The Project would be required to submit Improvement Plans for the required off-site improvements through the Building Permit process, for review and approval by the City to ensure improvements would be consistent with the city’s standards.

The Project also proposes 38 parking stalls, including 32 standard stalls, 3 compact stalls, and 3 accessible stalls.

This meets the requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, i.e., 37.5 parking stalls in total. As such, the Project is compliant with General Plan Policy CIRC-5.1. Overall, the Project would be generally consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies and would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway facilities.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
There are existing pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks) adjacent north, east, and south of the Project site. There are no existing or proposed bicycle facilities adjacent to or in proximity to the Project site as identified in the General Plan. The Project proposes a six-ft. wide concrete sidewalk for onsite pedestrian circulation. The proposed facilities would help achieve the General Plan’s goal by providing on-site pedestrian features (Policy CIRC-8.1).

Transit Facilities
There are no existing or planned transit facilities adjacent to or in proximity to the Project site as identified by the General Plan. The nearest transit bus stop to the Project site is the Atwater Target (Stop ID: 4305) stop on Route A1 – Atwater Loop, which is approximately 0.4 mile from the site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit facilities. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 98
Less than Significant Impact. SB 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of LOS. MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines (2022) adopted a screening criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. According to the Guidelines, the proposed Project screens out as a Low Trip Generator, which has a threshold generating less than 500 ADT for projects that are inconsistent with the General Plan. Since the project is inconsistent with the General Plan because it proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from VLDR – Very Low Density Residential to HDR – High Density Residential the 500 ADT threshold is appropriate. Trip generation is estimated using generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. ITE Land Use 220, Low-Rise Multifamily Housing, is used for the proposed development. Low-Rise Multifamily Housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have two or three floors (levels).

Table 4-11 provides the Project’s trip generation estimates. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 168.5 ADT.

Table 4-11 Project Trip Generation
ITE Land Use Dwelling Units Average Rate (ADT) Trip Generation (ADT) Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (220) 25 6.74 168.5
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition Since the Project is expected to generate 168.5 ADT, it is under the threshold of 500 ADT that is set forth in the MCAG VMT Thresholds and Guidelines. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project design does not contain any geometric design features that would create hazards. Implementation of the Project would not require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network serving the Project site. The site would be accessible via two (2) point of ingress/egress on the north and east boundary of the site. An internal turning radius is also proposed per City of Atwater standards for fire and solid waste vehicle access. In addition, the Project would be required to submit Improvement Plans through the Building Permit process for review and approval by the City to ensure offsite improvements (i.e., driveway approach) would be consistent with adopted City of Atwater standards. Compliance with such standards, specifications, and plans would ensure that any traffic hazards are minimized. Lastly, the Project proposes a residential development of a site that is planned and zoned for residential use within an area comprising existing and planned residential uses.

Therefore, the Project does not propose an incompatible use because it is consistent with the existing development in the area and is similar in nature to the surrounding uses. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, the Project site is subject to review by the City to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that Project construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through standard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 99

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 100

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
section 5020.1(k), or,
X
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.5.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on December 12, 2023, there are no known local, state, or federal designated historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) on the Project site. While there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CULT-1 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential historical resources discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 101
resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site and its resources have not been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to Section 5024.1. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources of significance to a California Native American tribe discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 102

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is within the City of Atwater limits and thus, will be connected to water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services provided by the City of Atwater and may be subject to fees to be provided such services. The Project would be served by private companies for the provision ofsolid waste collection and disposal and electricity and natural gas, as needed. Each utility system is described below.

Water
Water supply, usage, and services are described in Section 4.10.

Wastewater
The City provides sewage disposal and treatment using a pipeline system, pump stations, and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility. The new WWTP, constructed in 2012, is located west of State Route 99 on Bert

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 103
Crane Road and handles an average flow of six (6) million gallons per day (MGD). The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is owned by the City but operated by a private contractor, Veolia Water North America, West. The 2020 average daily flow was 3.3 mgd, which is approximately 54% of the current average daily permitted flow. The WWTP receives and treats wastewater from the City as well as the Winton Water and Sanitary District (WWSD) and Castle Airport. 41
Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Mid Valley Disposal, and then transported and disposed in one (1) of two (2) Merced County Landfills. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is responsible for managing and implementing regional solid waste disposal services, known as the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (RWA). The RWA owns and operates the two (2) regional landfills within Merced County and administers integrated waste management contracts and grants on behalf of member jurisdictions.

Stormwater
Stormwater services are described in Section 4.10.

Natural Gas and Electricity
Major electrical transmission lines run through the northern and southern portions of the city. Electrical and natural gas service is largely provided by MID, primarily from fossil fuel and hydroelectric sources. State Route 99 contains a major natural gas main and crude oil pipeline. The gas main pipeline has an offshoot line running directly north through down, beginning approximately at Atwater Boulevard and First Street.

4.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within city limits and thus, would be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications would be provided by private companies. The Project also proposes the construction of two (2) bioretention areas within the site boundaries to collect and treat on-site stormwater discharge. The City and responsible agencies have reviewed the Project to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable connection requirements. In addition to connections to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services, the Project would be served by MID for natural gas and electricity and by the appropriate telecommunications provider for the Project Area. Therefore, all wet and dry public utilities, facilities, and infrastructure are in place and available to serve the Project site without the need for relocated, new, or expanded facilities. While new utility and service connections would need to be extended to and from the Project site (e.g., sewer, stormwater runoff, electrical), 41 City of Atwater (2022). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed January 4, 2024, https://www.atwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Final-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 104
these new connections would not result in a need to modify the larger off-site infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, and impact would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10, the City’s long-term water resource planning is addressed in the City’s 2020 UWMP. According to these plans, the city uses groundwater wells as the sole source of supply; the city does not use any other water sources including surface water, storm water, recycled water, or desalinated water. As such, groundwater should be viewed as a sustainable resource. As concluded in Section 4.10, it can be presumed that existing groundwater water supplies should be adequate to serve the Project’s anticipated demand.

The UWMP projects normal water year, single dry water year, and five-year consecutive drought period supplies based on historic water allocations, sustainable yields, and utilization of recycled water. Based on these projections, the UWMP found that groundwater supplies remain reliable in all hydrologic conditions. The projections also show that the City will have greater than 10,000 AF available supply in normal years after meeting demands. In a single dry year and five-year consecutive drought periods, groundwater supplies will be reduced but the City would still be able to meet all potable demands. Based on these projections, it can be inferred that future development, such as the proposed Project, will not negatively impact the City’s ability to provide water assuming adherence to requirements and recommendations from the City’s water resources planning efforts.

Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP, the Project would not generate significantly greater water demand as to substantially decrease groundwater supplies. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system should be adequate to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term wastewater planning is addressed in the City’s 2010 Sewer Master Plan (Master Plan). Land use types are important to determine projected demand and adequate sizing and capacity for pipes and facilities to maintain effective sanitary sewer system facilities. The land use assumptions in the Master Plan were based on the General Plan and projected future development within the City’s proposed growth boundary. The Master Plan estimates the future quantity of wastewater generated at build out of the collections system. Wastewater flows associated with build out are projected to be approximately 7.08 millions of gallons per day (mgd).

The Project proposes a GPA to change the planned land use designation from VLDR – Very Low Density Residential to HDR – High Density Residential. Therefore, as a higher density residential development, the Project is anticipated to generate additional wastewater beyond existing conditions. As shown in Table 2-1 of Master Plan, the Very Low

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 105
Density residential land use type is projected to generate a wastewater flow coefficient (gpd/ac) of 300 gpd/ac and the High Density residential land use type is projected to generate 1,500 gpd/ac. Table 4-12 summarizes the total wastewater flows to be expected for the Project. Additionally, payment of Sewer Connection Fees and ongoing user fees would ensure that the Project’s impacts on existing wastewater facilities are adequately offset (i.e., ensuring that sufficient capacity is available). The developer is also conditioned to provide sewer loading calculations and report for the development.

Table 4-12 Summary of Total Wastewater Flows by Land Use Land Use Type Area (ac) Wastewater Flow Coefficient (gpd/ac) Daily Average (GPD) Very Low Density Residential 1.13 300 339
High Density Residential 1.13 1,500 1,695
Source: City of Atwater Sewer Master Plan (2010)
According to the Master Plan, the City manages and maintains gravity sewer lines ranging from 4 to 36 inches in diameter, 18 active lift stations, and force mains ranging from 4 to 14 inches in diameter. Wastewater generated in the sewer service area is conveyed to the Atwater’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). However, sewage from Castle Airport does not flow through the City’s sewer network. Atwater’s WWTP has a capacity of 6.0 mgd (millions of gallons per day) and the current average daily flow is 3.43 mgd. It is expected that future sewer mains need to be primarily 10 to 24 inches in diameter, based on capacity levels.

In summary, the Project is anticipated to generate additional wastewater beyond existing conditions. However, there are existing facilities available to convey wastewater generated from the Project subject to the installation of a new sewer house branch(es) and payment of Sewer Connection Fees and ongoing user fees. Payment of the required Sewer Connection Fees and ongoing user fees would ensure that sufficient capacity is available and that the Project’s impacts on existing facilities are adequately offset. For these reasons, it can be determined that the wastewater treatment provider has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste collection services provided within the City of Atwater are in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50% of its waste stream away from landfills either through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. In addition, Mid Valley Disposal complies with SB 1383, which requires reduction of organic waste disposal by 75% by 2025. 42
Construction
CALGreen mandates locally permitted new residential building construction and demolition to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated during the Project. Further, the recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building or demolition permit that generates at least eight (8) cubic yards of material by volume. Therefore, the Project would 42 Mid Valley Disposal. Compliance and Regulation. Accessed January 4, 2023, https://www.midvalleydisposal.com/sustainability/compliance-and-regulation/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 106
be required to implement techniques to reduce and recycle waste during construction activities in accordance with mandatory requirements under CALGreen as implemented through the building permit process. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, solid waste generated through construction activities is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Operations
The Project is anticipated to generate 100 to 215 pounds of solid waste per day (18.25 to 39.24 tons per year) as estimated using CalRecycle’s generation rates. 43 According to the review of the Project by the City of Atwater Engineering Department, trash enclosures are required to be shown on the Final Map to ensure provision. As such, Project operations are not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d), Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with AB 939 and CALGreen regulations related to solid waste. As a multi-family development, the Project would also be subject to AB 341, the state’s mandatory commercial recycling law, AB 827, the state’s customer access to recycling law. AB 341 requires all businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of solid waste per week and multi-family properties with five or more units to arrange for recycling services. AB 827 requires recycling and organics recycling containers at the “front-of-house” to collect waste generated. These containers are required to be placed adjacent to trash containers and be visible, easily accessible, and clearly marked. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the Project would comply with laws and regulations that would ensure impacts related to solid waste are reduced to less than significant levels.

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
43 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed January 4, 2024, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 107

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility or
lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located on a relatively flat property within the city limits and is in an area planned for urban uses, including residential development. According to the Atwater General Plan, grass and brush lands are the most likely places for wildlands in Merced County; however, Atwater lies outside of these areas and as a result, the risk of wildland fire is low. 44 Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Atwater as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); rather, the site is within an “area of local responsibility” as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk.45 Lastly, the Project would be required to be developed and operated in compliance with all regulations of the current California Fire Code.

4.20.2 Impact Assessment
44 City of Atwater, California. (2000). City of Atwater 2000 General Plan. 45 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on January 4, 2024, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 108
If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project would not impair access to the existing roadway network. Construction may require lane closure; however, these activities would be short-term and access through Sunset Drive would be maintained through standard traffic control. Following construction, this roadway would continue to provide access to the site.

Safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be provided in addition to adequate access for emergency vehicles. To determine and ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation and emergency vehicle access, the Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Atwater Police Department and Fire Department for compliance with applicable code and regulations including applicable emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not in an area that is subject to strong prevailing winds or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The site is highly disturbed and is not located within a wildland (i.e., wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited land), which precludes the risk of wildfire. Further, the Project site is within an “area of local responsibility” and is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a VHFHSZ. For these reasons, no impact would occur as a result of this Project. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The Project is located within city limits in an area with existing infrastructure such as roads and utilities that are maintained accordingly. As previously discussed, all proposed project components (including utilities, roadway, buildings, walls, and landscaping) would be located within the boundaries of the Project site and have been reviewed and/or conditioned by the City of Atwater for compliance with applicable codes and regulations.

Through compliance, such infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and no impact would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils, and the site is not in the immediate vicinity of rivers or creeks that would be more susceptible to landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 109

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

4.21.1 Impact Assessment
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 110
mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project-related impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). The Project is generally compliant with the AMC and General Plan, which indicates that the anticipated impacts from the Project are, to an extent, compliant and previously analyzed within the General Plan. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.21.2 Mitigation Measures.

None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 111
5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
January 2024
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Atwater is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initials
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown resources before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity and a consultation with a qualified historical resources specialist shall be held to determine whether further study is required.

Recommendations by the qualified historical resources specialist shall be made to the City on the necessary implementation measures to protect the resources discovered. If the resources meet the definitions under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, then protection measures shall be recommended to the City by the qualified historical resources specialist. The Lead Agency shall approve the protection measures before any further grading shall occur. Historical resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to an institution approved by the City in order to provide preservation and further study as required.

Submittal of
Documentation
and/or Onsite
Verification
During Project
Construction
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains on the Project site during construction, the following steps in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be taken prior to the continuation of, and during, construction activities, in order to mitigate potential impact:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

Submittal of
Documentation
and/or Onsite
Verification
During Project
Construction
City of Atwater

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 112
• The coroner of the County in which the remains are
discovered must be contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required; and,
• If the coroner determines the remains to be Native
American:
• The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
• The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely
descended from the deceased Native American.
• The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 113
6 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency
City of Atwater
750 Bellevue Road
Atwater, CA 95301
(209) 357-6370
Greg Thompson, City Manager/ Community
Development Director
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of Planning
Shin Tu, AICP, Associate Planner

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 114
7 APPENDICES

7.1 Appendix A: CNDDB Occurrence Report
Downloaded from the California Natural Diversity Database dated December 12, 2023.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19070
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G5
S4
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: BREEDS IN GRASSLANDS WITH SCATTERED TREES, JUNIPER-SAGE FLATS, RIPARIAN AREAS, SAVANNAHS, AND AGRICULTURAL OR RANCH LANDS WITH GROVES OR LINES OF TREES.

Micro: REQUIRES ADJACENT SUITABLE FORAGING AREAS SUCH AS GRASSLANDS, OR ALFALFA OR GRAIN FIELDS SUPPORTING RODENT POPULATIONS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 1690 Map Index: 69604 EO Index: 70377 Element Last Seen: 2007-06-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2007-06-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-07-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35010 / -120.55762
UTM: Zone-10 N4136510 E716330
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 170
Acres: 0.0

JUST SOUTH OF CANAL CREEK, WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH SANTA FE ROAD, SOUTH OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE AND EAST OF ATWATER.

Location:

NEST TREE IS FOUND WITHIN A GROVE OF MATURE EUCALYPTUS TREES, AT THE EASTERN END. COUNTY AVENUE TWO IS ABOUT 100 YARDS TO THE SOUTH OF THE NEST TREE.

Detailed Location:

NEST TREE IS A EUCALYPTUS; SURROUNDED BY AN IRRIGATION CANAL, SANTA FE RAILROAD, AND SANTA FE DRIVE TO THE NORTH. FALLOW FIELDS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.

Ecological:

SWHA PAIR ACTIVITY AROUND NEST FIRST OBSERVED IN MAY 2007; 1 FLEDGLING OBSERVED IN NEST ON 28 JUN 2007, WITH FEMALE PERCHED ON NEST EDGE AND MALE PERCHED 50' TO THE SW.

General:

Owner/Manager: MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Occurrence No. 1759 Map Index: 83231 EO Index: 84236 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.30219 / -120.56613
UTM: Zone-10 N4131174 E715712
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 29, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 145
Acres: 0.0
Location: ALONG MCSWAIN ROAD (SR 140) ABOUT 0.3 MI EAST OF N GURR RD, AT MCSWAIN SCHOOL.

IN EUCALYPTUS GROVE ABOUT 250 FEET EAST OF PERSIMMON WAY. BLACK RASCAL CREEK TO THE NORTH & BEAR CREEK TO THE SOUTH. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

Detailed Location:

NEST IN TALLEST EUCALYPTUS TREE IN GROVE BORDERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF RESIDENTIAL, ROW CROP, SCHOOL, & PASTURE. VISIBLE DISTURBANCES INCLUDE TRAFFIC ON SR 140, AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES & SCHOOL YARD CHILDREN.

Ecological:

ONE ADULT OBSERVED SITTING IN NEST WITH ONE ADULT SOARING CLOSE TO NEST TREE ON 14 MAY 2008. ASSUMED TO BE IN INCUBATION STAGE.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Atwater (3712035)) Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 1760 Map Index: 83232 EO Index: 84238 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32504 / -120.54987
UTM: Zone-10 N4133746 E717088
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16 (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 155
Acres: 0.0
JUST NORTH OF HWY 99, AT ASHBY RD & TRINIDADE RD INTERSECTION, JUST NW OF FERGUS, 4 MI NW OF MERCED POST OFFICE.

Location:

Detailed Location: CENTER OF SECTION 16. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

NEST TREE IN ROW OF EUCALYPTUS TREES ALONG TRINIDADE ROAD. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF ROW CROP, RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ORCHARD, AND PASTURE. VISIBLE DISRBANCES: AGRICULTURE RELATED ACTIVITIES.

Ecological:
1 LIGHT MORPH & 1 DARK MORPH ADULTS OBSERVED IN TREE EATING PREY THAT WAS CAUGHT IN FIELD DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HWY 99 ON 14 MAY 2009. NEST WAS IN INCUBATION STAGE AT TIME OF OBSERVATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 2683 Map Index: A0387 EO Index: 101947 Element Last Seen: 2016-04-13 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2016-04-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-06-08
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28872 / -120.54212
UTM: Zone-10 N4129734 E717881
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 147
Acres: 18.0
ALONG BAILEY AVE ABOUT 1 MILE EAST OF GURR RD, ABOUT 1.5 MILES W OF MERCED MUNICPAL AIRPORT, WEST OF THE CITY OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION GIVEN AS "TREES AT 3014 BAILEY AVE" AND APPEARS TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF THORNTON LATERAL AT BAILEY AVE.

Detailed Location:

RESIDENCE WITH "PINE AND EUCALYPTUS TREES AT END OF DRIVEWAY" SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS 2 SWHA PERCHED IN A REDWOOD/SEQUOIA. ADDITIONAL NEST TREES MAY BE ALONG SOUTH SLOUGH & BEAR CREEK. AG LIKELY USED FOR FORAGING.

Ecological:

RESIDENT REPORTS 5 PAIRS SOARING ABOVE FIELDS & "NEST[ING] IN TREES ON PROPERTY" IN APR 2016. ALSO, JUVENILES SEEN WITH ADULTS IN SPRING OF 2015. THOUGH REPORT IS PLAUSIBLE, BIRD NUMBERS & SPECIFIC NEST INFORMATION IS QUESTIONABLE; NIMBY?
General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19120
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S3S4
Other: CDFW_WL-Watch List, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: OPEN GRASSLANDS, SAGEBRUSH FLATS, DESERT SCRUB, LOW FOOTHILLS AND FRINGES OF PINYON AND JUNIPER HABITATS.

Micro: EATS MOSTLY LAGOMORPHS, GROUND SQUIRRELS, AND MICE. POPULATION TRENDS MAY FOLLOW LAGOMORPH POPULATION CYCLES.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 60 Map Index: 67366 EO Index: 67534 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-04 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-04
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-12
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36272 / -120.54352
UTM: Zone-10 N4137942 E717542
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: NORTH OF W BELLEVUE ROAD AND JUST EAST OF CANAL CREEK, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location: LOCATION MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM COORDINATES AND MAP.

Ecological:
1 ADULT OBSERVED FLYING/FORAGING OVER OPEN HAY FIELD ON 4 OCT 2006. CURRENT/SURROUNDING LAND: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES WITH HIGHLY DISTURBED LAND. VISIBLE DISTURBANCE: LONG TERM MANIPULATION OF LAND.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
Element Code: ABNSB10010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_LC-Least Concern, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOWGROWING VEGETATION.

Micro: SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Habitat:

Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 812 Map Index: 64827 EO Index: 64906 Element Last Seen: 2006-05-25 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2006-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-06-07
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.27390 / -120.50677
UTM: Zone-10 N4128172 E721057
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35, SE (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 18.4
Location: SE END OF MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ON THE SW EDGE OF MERCED.

BURROWS ARE FOUND IN TWO DISTINCT AREAS, ABOUT 0.2 MILE APART. BOTH ARE LOCATED AT SOUTHERN END OF AIRPORT RUNWAY.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF DISTURBED (MOWED) NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND.

General: 6 ACTIVE BURROWS (WITH 6 ADULTS) OBSERVED ON 25 MAY 2006.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Occurrence No. 876 Map Index: 67347 EO Index: 67514 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-06 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-06
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35908 / -120.53123
UTM: Zone-10 N4137567 E718642
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 03, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF BELLEVUE ROAD AND 0.5 MILE EAST OF FRANKLIN ROAD, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY CONTAINING NUMEROUS DETENTION BASINS; LAND IS HIGHLY DISTURBED/MAINPULATED.

Ecological:

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED AT BURROW ON 6 OCT 2006 AND DURING TWO OTHER VISITS TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 877 Map Index: 67348 EO Index: 67516 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-24 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-24
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33611 / -120.56332
UTM: Zone-10 N4134944 E715864
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 08, SE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.25 MILE WEST OF GURR ROAD AND 0.4 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE ONE, SE OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND RUDERAL FIELD.

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 24 OCT 2006 AND DURING ONE OTHER VISIT TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 988 Map Index: 70100 EO Index: 70964 Element Last Seen: 2007-07-16 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2007-07-16
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-10-03
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29057 / -120.51700
UTM: Zone-10 N4129998 E720101
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 26 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 154
Acres: 28.0
Location: MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, SW OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT SURROUNDING BURROW SITES CONSISTS OF DISTURBED ANNUAL GRASSLAND DOMINATED BY PERENNIAL

RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE), YELLOW STAR THISTLE (CENTAUREA SOLSTITIALIS), CURLY DOCK (RUMEX CRISPUS), AND SPRING VETCH (VICIA SATIVA SSP. SATIVA).

Ecological:

General: 9 INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED ON 16 JUL 2007.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Element Code: ABPBXB0020
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G1G2
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_EN-Endangered, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

Micro: REQUIRES OPEN WATER, PROTECTED NESTING SUBSTRATE, AND FORAGING AREA WITH INSECT PREY WITHIN A FEW KM OF THE COLONY.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 65 Map Index: 13166 EO Index: 24755 Element Last Seen: 1971-05-09 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1971-05-09
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-01-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29715 / -120.58380
UTM: Zone-10 N4130574 E714161
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 30 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 135
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 1.8 MI ESE OF HWY 140 & APPLEGATE RD INTERSECTION, 2.6 MI S OF HWY 99 & BUHACH RD INTERSECTION, W OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 140; 4.5 MILES WEST OF MERCED." COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTH BUHACH ROAD AT HIGHWAY 140" & "WEST MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

Detailed Location:

BLACKBERRIES IN IRRIGATED PASTURES. COLONY APPROXIMATELY 1/25 ACRE. DOMINANT SURROUNDING LAND USE WAS HALF ALFALFA AND HALF RESIDENTIAL, NO SUITABLE NESTING HABITAT IN 2014. 4.5 MILES MEASURED FROM HWY 99 & HWY 140 INTERSECTION.

Ecological:

ABOUT 1500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 9 MAY 1971 BY DEHAVEN; PRESUMED NESTING, AREA TOO INACCESSIBLE TO REACH. 0 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 18 APR 2014; UNCLEAR IF THIS SURVEY WAS AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE 1971 LOCATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 633 Map Index: 97347 EO Index: 98620 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-26 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1933-04-26
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26050 / -120.51959
UTM: Zone-10 N4126655 E719959
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 02 (M)
Accuracy: 4/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
Location: ABOUT 2.6 MI SW OF HWY 59 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, 5.4 MI NNW OF HWY 59 & SANDY MUSH RD, SW OF MERCED.

LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS "THREE MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO AREA THAT APPEARED TO HISTORICALLY HAVE WATER (HARTLEY SLOUGH) BASED ON A 1918 USGS TOPO MAP FOR ATWATER QUAD.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT ONLY DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDED TO DETERMINE STATUS OF COLONY.

Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 100 NESTS OBSERVED ON 26 APR 1933.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 634 Map Index: 97352 EO Index: 98624 Element Last Seen: 1933-05-19 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-05-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28790 / -120.50908
UTM: Zone-10 N4129719 E720811
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 2 MI NW OF HWY 59 & VASSAR AVE INTERSECTION, 2.9 MI W OF HWY 99 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, SW EDGE OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO CANALS JUST SW OF MERCED CITY PROPER. CANALS IDENTIFIED USING 1917 & 1947-48 USGS TOPO MAPS FOR MERCED & ATWATER QUADS. EL CAPITAN CANAL & MERCED LATERAL WERE POSSIBLE CANALS FOR COLONY LOCATION.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAILS ALONG CANAL. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). VERY LITTLE TO NO HABITAT VISIBLE IN AERIAL PHOTOS. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTHWEST MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 1500 NESTS OBSERVED ON 19 MAY 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 635 Map Index: 97354 EO Index: 98627 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-27 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-04-27
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.31620 / -120.48409
UTM: Zone-10 N4132919 E722944
PLSS: T07S, R14E, Sec. 19 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
ALONG BEAR CREEK, JUST E OF HWY 59 & SANTA FE AVE INTERSECTION, 2.4 MI NW OF HWY 140 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "NORTH OF MERCED." FEATURE MAPPED ALONG BEAR CREEK ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF MERCED. CREEK HISTORICALLY BOUNDED THE N SIDE OF MERCED (USGS 1917 & 1948 TOPO, MERCED QUAD).

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). AREA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN HEAVILY DEVELOPED SINCE TIME OF DETECTION BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRBL PORTAL; SITE "NORTH MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 250 NESTS OBSERVED ON 27 APR 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 639 Map Index: 97371 EO Index: 98652 Element Last Seen: 2014-04-19 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2014-04-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-28
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035), Yosemite Lake (3712044), Winton (3712045) County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.37760 / -120.49598
UTM: Zone-10 N4139704 E721709
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 25, SW (M)
Accuracy: 2/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 190
Acres: 0.0
JUST E OF HWY 59 & NEVADA ST INTERSECTION, ABOUT 0.6 MI NNE OF BREEZE RD & UTAH ST INTERSECTION, N OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO PROVIDED LOCATION IN PORTAL. ENTRANCE TO MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA VISIBLE IN GOOGLE STREET VIEW. COLONY DATA STORED IN THE UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA."
Detailed Location:

HABITAT WAS TRITICALE BEFORE BEING HARVESTED ON 22 APR 2014. DISTANCE TO STORED GRAINS WAS "100-500" METERS. DISTANCE TO WATER WAS OVER 100 METERS.

Ecological:

ABOUT 2,000-2,500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 19 APR 2014; BEHAVIOR CLASSIFIED AS SINGING, BREEDING, AND COLONY QUIET (INCUBATION INFERRED). COLONY WAS DESTROYED DUE TO HARVEST ON 22 APR 2014.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN, PVT
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
Element Code: AMAJA03041
Federal:

State:

Endangered
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4T2
S3
Other:

General: ANNUAL GRASSLANDS OR GRASSY OPEN STAGES WITH SCATTERED SHRUBBY VEGETATION.

Micro: NEED LOOSE-TEXTURED SANDY SOILS FOR BURROWING, AND SUITABLE PREY BASE.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 23 Map Index: 42082 EO Index: 42082 Element Last Seen: 1999-08-20 Occ. Rank: Poor Site Last Seen: 1999-08-20
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1999-12-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36666 / -120.60137
UTM: Zone-10 N4138247 E712407
PLSS: T06S, R12E, Sec. 36 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 286.7
Location: LIVINGSTON CANAL, FROM APROXIMATLY BELLEVUE ROAD TO WINTON WAY, ATWATER.

Detailed Location: ALONG CANAL AREA, MERCED COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

Ecological: AREA IS FLAT WITH SANDY SOILS.
1 OBSERVED IN BACKYARD, THEN TRAVELED WEST ALONG CANAL, 1999. 1 ADULT, 2 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN THE EARLY 1980'S, OVER A MONTH, FREQUENTING AN EXPOSED CONCRETE PIPE OPENING; AREA PREVIOUSLY BORDERED BY AG AND SOME RESIDENTIAL NOW HOUSING.

General:

Owner/Manager: MER COUNTY
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 8 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Element Code: ARAAD02030
Federal:

State:

Proposed Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3G4
S3
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable, USFS_S-Sensitive General: A THOROUGHLY AQUATIC TURTLE OF PONDS, MARSHES, RIVERS, STREAMS AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, USUALLY WITH AQUATIC VEGETATION, BELOW 6000 FT ELEVATION.

Micro: NEEDS BASKING SITES AND SUITABLE (SANDY BANKS OR GRASSY OPEN FIELDS) UPLAND HABITAT UP TO 0.5 KM FROM WATER FOR EGG-LAYING.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 321 Map Index: 67349 EO Index: 67517 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36083 / -120.55443
UTM: Zone-10 N4137708 E716581
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: CANAL CREEK, 0.3 MILE WEST OF FOX ROAD AND 0.3 MILE NORTH OF BRADSHAW ROAD, CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT WITHIN CANAL CREEK CONSISTS OF HERBACEOUS VEGETATION. SURROUNDING LAND CONSISTS OF LOWDENSITY AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS HIGHLY MANIPULATED FOR AGRICULTURE, DAIRY, AND CASTLE AFB.Ecological:

General: 1 JUVENILE OBSERVED ON THE BANK OF CANAL CREEK ON 13 OCT 2006.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Element Code: ICBRA03030
Federal:

State:

Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General: ENDEMIC TO THE GRASSLANDS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CENTRAL COAST MOUNTAINS, AND SOUTH COAST MOUNTAINS, IN ASTATIC RAIN-FILLED POOLS.

Micro: INHABIT SMALL, CLEAR-WATER SANDSTONE-DEPRESSION POOLS AND GRASSED SWALE, EARTH SLUMP, OR BASALT-FLOW DEPRESSION POOLS.

Habitat:

Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 181 Map Index: 36115 EO Index: 31112 Element Last Seen: 1997-02-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 1997-02-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.34685 / -120.55031
UTM: Zone-10 N4136165 E716987
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 0.0
Location: JUST NW OF THE INTERSECTION OF FOX ROAD AND CARDELLA ROAD, 2 MILES EAST OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTED OF A ROADSIDE POOL, ADJACENT TO ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS, SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

General: 1 ADULT COLLECTED ON 13 FEB 1997 (CASIZ #111133).

Owner/Manager: PVT
Occurrence No. 305 Map Index: 46094 EO Index: 46094 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35203 / -120.50373
UTM: Zone-10 N4136848 E721098
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 01, SW (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 17.8
ABOUT 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, FROM INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 59 AND TAHOE STREET TO 0.2 MILE SOUTH ON HIGHWAY 59.

Location:

Detailed Location: CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59. SAMPLE POOLS 5A, 5B, & 5B1.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND; SURROUNDING LAND USES WERE AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING AT TIME OF SURVEY.

Ecological:
8 COLLECTED IN 2000 (CASIZ #154910). 2 POOLS, EACH WITH 100 ADULTS, AND 1 POOL WITH 10 ADULTS OBSERVED FEB 2001; 16 COLLECTED (CASIZ #154907, 154908). 13 COLLECTED ON 28 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162474, 162487).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 10 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 306 Map Index: 46095 EO Index: 46095 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-11 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-11
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33240 / -120.50482
UTM: Zone-10 N4134668 E721059
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 11, SE (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 31.4
ABOUT 5 MI EAST OF ATWATER; ALONG HIGHWAY 59, FROM 0.2 TO 0.7 MI SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 59 AND BELCHER AVE.

Location:

Detailed Location: SURVEYED POOLS WERE IN THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND SURROUNDED BY LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURE & GRAZING AT TIME OF 2000-01 SURVEYS. SPEA HAMMONDII, LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS, & INDICATOR PLANTS ALSO FOUND. AIR PHOTOS SHOW DEVELOPMENT IN SE PORTION OF OCCURRENCE.

Ecological:

THOUSANDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS & 10 IN 1 POOL, NOV 2000; 24 COLLECTED (IN CAS). HUNDREDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS, FEB 2001; UP TO 51 COLLECTED FEB & DEC 2001 (IN CAS). 7 COLLECTED ON 11 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162476).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
Element Code: ICBRA06010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2G3
S2S3
Other: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General: SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

Micro: WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 196 Map Index: 47479 EO Index: 47479 Element Last Seen: 2000-11-21 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2000-11-21
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2002-03-25
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35963 / -120.50374
UTM: Zone-10 N4137692 E721075
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 02, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF WEST BELLEVUE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 59.

Detailed Location: POOL ALONG CULVERT LOCATED ON WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF A SWALE. SURROUNDING AREA IS RURAL / GRAZING LAND.

General: 21 NOV 2000: 500 ADULTS AND 500 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN SAMPLE POOL 6A.

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 11 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
Element Code: PDCHE042P0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2
S2
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: ALKALINE VERNAL POOLS. 3-115 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 4 Map Index: 36774 EO Index: 31771 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2013-06-03
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24727 / -120.62010
UTM: Zone-10 N4124958 E711081
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 18.0
Location: NORTHWEST OF WHERE VENTURA ROAD GOES FROM E-W TO N-S, 6 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

RANGE ROAD/VENTURA ROAD ALSO NAMED JOHN SANDERS ROAD. SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

ALKALI GRASSLAND WITH SHALLOW VERNAL POOLS. ASSOCIATED WITH HORDEUM MARINUM SSP. GUSSONEANUM,

NEOSTAPFIA COLUSANA, AMARANTHUS ALBUS, FRANKENIA GRANDIFOLIA, CRYPSIS SCHOENOIDES, CRESSA TRUXILLENSIS, ERYNGIUM VASEYI, AND DISTICHLIS SPICATA.

Ecological:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS SEEN IN 1987. 100'S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2009. 100,000S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2011. 1989 TAYLOR COLLECTION AND 1994 & 1995 STUTZ COLLECTIONS ALSO ATTRIBUTED HERE. ONE OF THE MOST OUTSTANDING ATPE OCCURRENCES.

General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Occurrence No. 7 Map Index: 36783 EO Index: 31780 Element Last Seen: 1926-06-18 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1926-06-18
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1998-04-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26480 / -120.53386
UTM: Zone-10 N4127099 E718682
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 03 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 140
Acres: 0.0
Location: 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS 1926 COLLECTION BY HOWELL. OCCURRENCE EXTIRPATED ACCORDING TO D. TAYLOR.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 12 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
Element Code: PMALI040Q0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2, BLM_S-Sensitive
General: MARSHES AND SWAMPS.

Micro: IN STANDING OR SLOW-MOVING FRESHWATER PONDS, MARSHES, AND DITCHES. 0-605 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 75 Map Index: 83260 EO Index: 84280 Element Last Seen: 2010-05-25 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2010-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-30
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32415 / -120.54171
UTM: Zone-10 N4133667 E717814
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 1.0
Location: CANAL WEST OF FRANKLIN ROAD ACROSS FROM LOBO AVE, ABOUT 0.2 MILE NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 99, MERCED.

Detailed Location: TWO COLONIES MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2010 COORDINATES PROVIDED BY GRAENING.

AGRICULTURAL CANAL; OCCASIONAL INUNDATION. ASSOCIATED WITH POLYGONUM HYDROPIPEROIDES, SORGHUM

HALEPENSE, JUNCUS BALTICUS, LYTHRUM HYSSOPIFOLIA, AVENA BARBATA, ERODIUM BOTRYS, PLANTAGO LANCEOLATA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: ABOUT 750 PLANTS OBSERVED IN EASTERN COLONY AND 96 PLANTS OBSERVED IN WESTERN COLONY IN 2010.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 13 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
Element Code: PMPOA4C010
Federal:

State:

Threatened
Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G1
S1
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: USUALLY IN THE BOTTOMS OF LARGE, OR DEEP VERNAL POOLS; ADOBE SOILS. 5-125 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 40 Map Index: 13099 EO Index: 6295 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Decreasing Record Last Updated: 2013-05-20
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24933 / -120.61933
UTM: Zone-10 N4125188 E711145
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 19.0
NORTHWEST OF JUNCTION OF RANGE ROAD AND VENTURA ROAD, 4.5 MILES NORTH OF THE MERCED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Location:

SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1982 MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTO, A 1988 MAP BY BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, AND 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

VERNAL POOLS APPARENTLY FORMED OVER LEWIS SALINE-ALKALINE SOILS. POOLS SURROUNDED BY VALLEY GRASSLAND. POOL ASSOCIATES INCLUDE AMARANTHUS ALBUS, POLYPOGON, CRYPSIS, ATRIPLEX, FRANKENIA, CRESSA, ERYNGIUM, DISTICHLIS, SIDA, NAVARRETIA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: >10,000 PLANTS IN 1982, 13,000+ IN 1986, 23,000 IN 1987, 1300 IN 1988, NONE IN 2009 & 2010, ~600 PLANTS IN 2011.

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 14 of 14 Information Expires 6/1/2024
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 115

7.2 Appendix B: CHRIS Search Record
Prepared by Central California Information Center dated December 12, 2023.

Date: 12/12/2023 Records Search File #: 12747I
Project: 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments
APN 056-640-004-000
Shin Tu, Associate Planner
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
559-449-4500 ext. 116 [email protected]
We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Atwater USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Merced County.

Search of our files includes review of our maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the following:

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest listing
Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD)
Survey of Surveys (1989)
Caltrans State and Local Bridges Inventory
General Land Office Plats
Other pertinent historic data available at the CCaIC for each specific county The following details the results of the records search:

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The project area is within the overall boundary of the proposed Merced Irrigation District (P-24-001909), but no contributing water conveyance features are referenced within the project area. The Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) shows this proposed multi-county district with a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation of 6Y, determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties

Resources or for local listing.
• The General Land Office survey plat for T7S R12E (dated 1855) does not reference any historical land divisions or features with Section 11.
• The 1918 and 1948 editions of the Atwater USGS quadrangle show the alignments of Sunset Drive and Applegate Road; the 1960 edition shows the entire City of Atwater street configuration.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None have been formally reported to the Information Center.

Resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Previous investigations within the project area: No project-specific survey has been formally reported to the Information Center, but the project area is with the boundary of an overview document, referenced as follows:

Holman, M. and R. Hellmann (Holman & Associates, for Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, Berkeley, CA)
2008 An Archival Study to Identify Potential Cultural Resources Located in the City of Atwater General Plan and Program EIR Project Area, Merced County, California.

CCaIC Report ME-06858
Recommendations/Comments:

Please be advised that a historical resource is defined as a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old. Since the project area has not been subject to previous investigations, there may be unidentified features involved in your project that are 45 years or older and considered as historical resources requiring further study and evaluation by a qualified professional of the appropriate discipline.

If the current project does not include ground disturbance, further study for archaeological resources is not recommended at this time. If ground disturbance is considered a part of the current project, we recommend further review for the possibility of identifying prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources.

If the proposed project contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years in age or older) it is recommended that the resource/s be assessed by a professional familiar with architecture and history of the county. Review of the available historic building/structure data has included only those sources listed above and should not be considered

comprehensive.

If at any time you might require the services of a qualified professional the Statewide Referral List for Historical Resources Consultants is posted for your use on the internet at http://chrisinfo.org
If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.

If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires you to protect the discovery and notify the county coroner, who will determine if the find is Native American. If the remains are recognized as Native American, the coroner shall then notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 authorizes the NAHC to appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

We thank you for contacting this office regarding historical resource preservation. Please let us know when we can be of further service. Thank you for transmitting the signed Access Agreement Short Form
Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($150.00
days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice

from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 116

7.3 Appendix C: NAHC SLF Results Letter
Prepared by NAHC dated December 21, 2023.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

December 21, 2023
Shin Tu
Precision Civil Engineering
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments Project, Merced County Dear Mr. Tu:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 117

7.4 Appendix D: CalEEMod Results
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc., on March 5, 2024.

7212 Sunset Drive Apartments
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - The project site is 1.13 acres.

Construction Phase - The site is vacant. Demolition will be restricted to areas with newly proposed driveway approachs.

Architectural Coating - Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semigloss paints are required to meet the 50 g/l standard, providing lower VOC emissions for buildings constructed after that date.

Area Coating - Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semigloss paints are required to meet the 50 g/l standard, providing lower VOC emissions for buildings constructed after that date.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semigloss paints are required to meet the 50 g/l standard, providing lower VOC emissions for buildings constructed after that date.

Waste Mitigation - The Project will recycle 50% of the solid waste in compliance with state requirements.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.13 25,000.00 72

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2027
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 50
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/31/2024 6/7/2024
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.56 1.13
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.13 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.13 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 3.6900e0030.0348 0.0345 6.0000e0052.6000e0041.5800e0031.8400e0037.0000e0051.4700e0031.5400e0030.0000 5.4780 5.4780 1.3400e0031.0000e0055.5132 Maximum 3.6900e0030.0348 0.0345 6.0000e0052.6000e0041.5800e0031.8400e0037.0000e0051.4700e0031.5400e0030.0000 5.4780 5.4780 1.3400e0031.0000e0055.5132 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 3.6900e0030.0348 0.0345 6.0000e0052.6000e0041.5800e0031.8400e0037.0000e0051.4700e0031.5400e0030.0000 5.4780 5.4780 1.3400e0031.0000e0055.5132 Maximum 3.6900e0030.0348 0.0345 6.0000e0052.6000e0041.5800e0031.8400e0037.0000e0051.4700e0031.5400e0030.0000 5.4780 5.4780 1.3400e0031.0000e0055.5132 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2024 8-31-2024 0.0385 0.0385
Highest 0.0385 0.0385

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050 Energy 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 27.7619 27.7619 1.8900e0035.2000e00427.9646 Mobile 0.0796 0.1412 0.7551 1.8800e0030.1980 1.6500e0030.1997 0.0530 1.5500e0030.0545 0.0000 179.8614 179.8614 8.7500e0039.6900e003182.9669 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3344 0.0000 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5168 1.1480 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765 Total 0.1935 0.1684 0.9512 2.0500e0030.1980 4.7100e0030.2028 0.0530 4.6100e0030.0576 2.8512 219.9047 222.7559 0.2024 0.0117 231.2964 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050 Energy 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 27.7619 27.7619 1.8900e0035.2000e00427.9646 Mobile 0.0738 0.1242 0.6645 1.5900e0030.1673 1.4100e0030.1687 0.0448 1.3200e0030.0461 0.0000 152.7833 152.7833 7.8800e0038.4600e003155.5022 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1672 0.0000 1.1672 0.0690 0.0000 2.8917 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5168 1.1480 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765 Total 0.1878 0.1514 0.8606 1.7600e0030.1673 4.4700e0030.1717 0.0448 4.3800e0030.0491 1.6840 192.8266 194.5106 0.1325 0.0105 200.9400 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 6/1/2024 6/7/2024 5 5
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 5/31/2024 5 2 3 Grading Grading 6/1/2024 5/31/2024 5 4
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

2.95 10.10 9.52 14.15 15.54 5.10 15.30 15.55 4.99 14.67 40.94 12.31 12.68 34.52 10.52 13.12 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Building Construction Building Construction 6/1/2024 5/31/2024 5 200 5 Paving Paving 6/1/2024 5/31/2024 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/1/2024 5/31/2024 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 50,625; Residential Outdoor: 16,875; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.6000e0030.0347 0.0337 6.0000e0051.5800e0031.5800e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 5.2729 5.2729 1.3300e0030.0000 5.3063 Total 3.6000e0030.0347 0.0337 6.0000e0051.5800e0031.5800e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 5.2729 5.2729 1.3300e0030.0000 5.3063 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 18.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.5000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.2051 0.2051 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2070 Total 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.5000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.2051 0.2051 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2070 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.6000e0030.0347 0.0337 6.0000e0051.5800e0031.5800e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 5.2729 5.2729 1.3300e0030.0000 5.3062 Total 3.6000e0030.0347 0.0337 6.0000e0051.5800e0031.5800e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 5.2729 5.2729 1.3300e0030.0000 5.3062 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.5000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.2051 0.2051 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2070 Total 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.5000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.2051 0.2051 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2070 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Walkability Design
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0738 0.1242 0.6645 1.5900e0030.1673 1.4100e0030.1687 0.0448 1.3200e0030.0461 0.0000 152.7833 152.7833 7.8800e0038.4600e003155.5022 Unmitigated 0.0796 0.1412 0.7551 1.8800e0030.1980 1.6500e0030.1997 0.0530 1.5500e0030.0545 0.0000 179.8614 179.8614 8.7500e0039.6900e003182.9669

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 183.00 203.50 157.00 528,024 445,971 Total 183.00 203.50 157.00 528,024 445,971
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 45.60 19.00 35.40 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.527584 0.052861 0.171901 0.146917 0.025722 0.006994 0.013595 0.026310 0.000640 0.000310 0.022677 0.001379 0.003111

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.5555 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.5555 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500 NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
341176 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146 Total 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
341176 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146 Total 1.8400e0030.0157 6.6900e0031.0000e0041.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0031.2700e0030.0000 18.2064 18.2064 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.3146 Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
103276 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500
Total 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050 Unmitigated 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
103276 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500
Total 9.5555 1.5500e0031.9000e0049.6500
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

7.8200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0976 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.0900e0039.3500e0033.9800e0036.0000e0057.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 10.8302 10.8302 2.1000e0042.0000e00410.8945 Landscaping 5.5700e0032.1400e0030.1855 1.0000e0051.0300e0031.0300e0031.0300e0031.0300e0030.0000 0.3032 0.3032 2.9000e0040.0000 0.3105 Total 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

7.8200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0976 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.0900e0039.3500e0033.9800e0036.0000e0057.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 10.8302 10.8302 2.1000e0042.0000e00410.8945 Landscaping 5.5700e0032.1400e0030.1855 1.0000e0051.0300e0031.0300e0031.0300e0031.0300e0030.0000 0.3032 0.3032 2.9000e0040.0000 0.3105 Total 0.1121 0.0115 0.1894 7.0000e0051.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0031.7900e0030.0000 11.1334 11.1334 5.0000e0042.0000e00411.2050 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765
Unmitigated 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765
Total 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765
Total 1.6648 0.0533 1.2800e0033.3765
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 1.1672 0.0690 0.0000 2.8917
Unmitigated 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Total 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

5.75 1.1672 0.0690 0.0000 2.8917
Total 1.1672 0.0690 0.0000 2.8917
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 3/5/2024 11:52 AM 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

August 12, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Hoem, City Manager

PREPARED
BY:

Kayla Rashad, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Open the public hearing and receive any testimony given; and Close the public hearing; and
Motion to waive the first reading, by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. CS 1068 approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004).

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

1. BACKGROUND:

The project site was annexed in 2009 with a pre-zone of Residential Estate (R-E), Single-Family Residential. At that time, the purpose of the annexation was to provide land for the construction of a school that would accommodate 459 children from grades 9-12 and a church.

On May 29, 2009, the City of Atwater adopted the Residential Estate (R-E) pre-zoning district for the annexation area. The pre-zoning designation corresponded to the Atwater General Plan map designation of Very Low Density Residential.

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

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 2

The site was originally included in the Atwater Sphere of Influence in 1984. LAFCo had approved an out of boundary service annexation on December 11, 2008, in order to provide water and sewer services to the proposed school site.

In 2009, the City of Atwater processed a vesting tentative parcel map to divide the tenacre school site from the six-acre church site along with a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a church within the Residential Estate (R-E) zone district.

The current proposal includes a Zone Change from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3). If approved, this entitlement would allow for the development of a two story, 25-unit apartment complex including 38 parking stalls, two bio retention areas for storm water, sidewalks, trash enclosures and the necessary landscaping and lighting required for such a development.

1. ANALYSIS:

Site Location and Description:

The project site is located on the northwest corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street. It is approximately 0.50 miles south of SR 99 and immediately adjacent to the Atwater Valley Community School to the north. The project site is currently shown as the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN): 056-540-004.

The site consists of two (2) parcels and is currently zoned as Residential Estate (R-E) with a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). The entire project site is presently undeveloped and does not include any structures. The primary access to the proposed development will be off Everett Street, with a secondary access point proposed for Matthew Drive along the north side of the development.

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 3

Zoning Consistency:

The project requires a Zone Change that would re-designate the project site from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential. This amendment would be consistent with assisting local and systematic population growth, ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and provide consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 4

General Plan Consistency:

The General Plan land use designation is Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) for the site. The uses listed for this designation include single family residences and residential accessory uses, churches, schools, parks, community care facilities, and necessary public utility and safety facilities. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the General Plan to allow High Density Residential which allows for multi-family units such as apartments, and/or condominiums up to four stories in height, Public Facilities and Community Infrastructure.

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 5

Housing Element Consistency:

The project is determined to be in conformance with the City’s Housing Element Update which was adopted as part of the City’s General Plan in May of 2017; supplemented and certified by the State in 2019. This element sets goals and priorities of community housing needs based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Goal H-1 states to provide suitable and adequate sites for residential development. This site is suitable for this use and has been previously designated for residential uses. The project is to be developed into a multi-family residential development.

Furthermore, Program H-1. a. relates to the vacant and non-vacant underutilized and site inventory program. This program did not identify the project site as “Vacant or Underutilized” but the project now being proposed would rezone the site to a highdensity multi-family residential district that could contribute to future RHNA numbers for the City of Atwater.

Goal H-2 of the City’s Housing Element states to accommodate a range of housing options by type, size, and other options. The project proposes to include multi-family residential lots and, through a General Plan Amendment, a multifamily development.

Allowing the amendment to a higher density will increase local housing options.

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 6

Surrounding Uses:

The existing land uses to the east and west are single-family residential. To the immediate south of the location is currently under agricultural operation with residential uses. The existing land use to the north is the Atwater Valley Community School. The proposed use of multifamily residential would be compatible with the uses described within the surrounding areas.

Conclusion:

Since the use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Municipal Code, the Atwater General Plan and other provisions, as set forth above, that any additional conditions stipulated by the Planning Division as deemed necessary in the public interest will be met (as set forth in the resolution), and that such use will not, under any circumstances of the particular case in this particular location, constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

This item would not have any significant negative fiscal impacts. 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:

Atwater Municipal Code 17.24 establishes the high-density residential requirements for the R-3-1.5 designation allowing single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family structures.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

An interdepartmental routing sheet was sent to all required departments and affected agencies for review and their comments and conditions have been incorporated.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public hearing was adequately noticed and advertised for the regularly scheduled City Council hearing.

Agenda Report - Waiving the first reading, by title only, and introducing an Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at the Northwest Corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street, Atwater (APN 056-540-004) (City Manager Hoem) Page 7

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project under section 15073 and its findings were made public and available for a 30-day public comment period beginning on May 8, 2024. The public comment period closed on June 7, 2024.

The City’s intent to adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were made known under section 15070.

Furthermore, no new change in the surrounding area has occurred that would contribute to findings that would be considered significant or represent a major change to the physical environment.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

The second reading and adoption of this ordinance will be scheduled for the next regular City Council meeting.

Submitted and Approved by:

Chris Hoem, City Manager
Attachments:

1. ZOTA Sunset

2. RSO PC 0238-23 Resolution Signed

3. Signed Application

4. Public Review Draft ISMND_7212 Sunset Drive Apartments

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER

ORDINANCE NO. CS XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER APPROVING ZONE CHANGE
NO. 23-19-0100 CHANGING THE ZONING

DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
(R-E) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APN: 056-540-004
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Atwater recommended the City Council approve Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to change the zoning designation from Residential Estate (R-E) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the property located at APN: 056-540-004; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atwater made the recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning for this project; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 would not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood nor have any adverse effect on the community; and
WHEREAS, the environmental assessment under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project resulted in the filing of a Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) with mitigated measures being incorporated into the project; and,
WHEREAS, __ person(s) spoke in favor of the Zone Change, __ person(s) spoke in opposition of the Zone Change, and __ written comment(s) have been submitted either in opposition or in favor of the Zone Change; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following findings can be made for Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 in support of the Project:

1. The proposed zone change from Residential Estate to High Density Residential is consistent with the amendment to the City’s General Plan and will allow for development of this and future uses which are attractively designed and consist of a mix of commercial uses.

Ordinance No. CS XXXX Page 2

2. The project underwent CEQA review, and an IS/MND were prepared to adequately identify and address any environmental impacts associated with the Project.

3. The public hearing for this Project has been adequately noticed and advertised.

4. Adoption of the ordinance will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or any adverse effects on the community.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Atwater as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. CEQA. Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 for the project is compliant with CEQA.

SECTION 3. Publication; Effective Date. Within 15 days from and after adoption, this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Merced County and circulated in Atwater, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

This City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed, and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced.

SECTION 5. Record of Proceedings. The custodian of records for this Ordinance is City Clerk and the records compromising the administrative record for this Ordinance are located at 1160 Fifth Street, Atwater, CA 95301.

SECTION 6. Zone Change. The City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby amend the zoning map of the City and approves Zone Change No. 23-19-0100 to reflect APN: 056-540-004 High Density Residential (R-3) subject to the development standards as adopted for this district and further pursuant to provisions of said code section referenced above do serve notice of the following conditions to any prospective property owner of the limitations of this entitlement as follows:

Ordinance No. CS XXXX Page 3
INTRODUCED:

ADOPTED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
__________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________

KORY BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

7212 Sunset Drive Apartments:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-19-0200, Zone Change
(RZ) 23-19-0100, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 23-19-0300, Variance (VAR) 23-19-0400, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 23- 19-0500
INITIAL STUDY – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 2024
Prepared for
City of Atwater
750 Bellevue Road
Atwater, CA 95301

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Regulatory Information................................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Document Format......................................................................................................................... 7 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Project Title................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................................. 9

2.4 Study Prepared By......................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.6 Latitude and Longitude ................................................................................................................. 9

2.7 General Plan Designation............................................................................................................ 12

2.8 Zoning ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.9 Description of Project ................................................................................................................. 17

2.10 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................ 17

2.11 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 18

2.12 Project Construction and Phasing............................................................................................... 18

2.13 Project Components................................................................................................................... 18

2.14 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required................................................................... 22

2.15 Consultation with California Native American Tribes.................................................................. 22 3 DETERMINATION................................................................................................................................ 23

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................... 23

3.2 Determination............................................................................................................................. 23 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................... 25

4.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................. 25

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 25

4.1.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 26

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 27

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................ 28

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 28

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 3

4.2.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 29

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 30

4.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 31

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 31

4.3.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 36

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 37

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................. 38

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 39

4.4.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 44

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 46

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 47

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 47

4.5.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 48

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 50

4.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 51

4.6.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 51

4.6.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 52

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 52

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 54

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 55

4.7.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 56

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 58

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 59

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 59

4.8.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 61

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 64

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ...................................................................................... 65

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 65

4.9.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 67

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 69

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 4

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 70

4.10.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 71

4.10.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 72

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 77

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING.................................................................................................................. 78

4.11.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 78

4.11.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 78

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 79

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 80

4.12.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 80

4.12.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 80

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 81

4.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 82

4.13.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 82

4.13.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 83

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 85

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 86

4.14.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 86

4.14.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 86

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 87

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................... 88

4.15.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 88

4.15.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 89

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 90

4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 91

4.16.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 91

4.16.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 91

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 92

4.17 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................... 93

4.17.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 93

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 5

4.17.2 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................. 97

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 99

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 100

4.18.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 100

4.18.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 100

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 101

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.............................................................................................. 102

4.19.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 102

4.19.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 103

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 106

4.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................................... 107

4.20.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 107

4.20.2 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 107

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 108

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................... 109

4.21.1 Impact Assessment........................................................................................................... 109

4.21.2 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................... 110 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM................................................................. 111 6 REPORT PREPARATION..................................................................................................................... 113 7 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 114

7.1 Appendix A: CNDDB Occurrence Report................................................................................... 114

7.2 Appendix B: CHRIS Search Record............................................................................................. 115

7.3 Appendix C: NAHC SLF Results Letter........................................................................................ 116

7.4 Appendix D: CalEEMod Results................................................................................................. 117 Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Location...................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-2 Project Site Aerial Image......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-3 City of Atwater General Plan Land Use Designation (Existing)................................................................ 13 Figure 2-4 City of Atwater General Plan Land Use Designation (Proposed)............................................................. 14

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 6
Figure 2-5 City of Atwater Zoning District (Existing) ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 2-6 City of Atwater Zoning District (Proposed) ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 2-7 Tentative Parcel Map.............................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2-8 Project Site Plan...................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4-1 CNDDB Species Occurrences .................................................................................................................. 42 Tables
Table 2-1 Proposed Development ........................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties........................ 18 Table 4-1 SJVAPCD Recommended Air Quality Thresholds of Significance2F.......................................................... 34 Table 4-2 SPAL Significance Thresholds................................................................................................................... 36 Table 4-3 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site ................................................. 41 Table 4-4 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site........................................... 43 Table 4-5 Consistency with General Plan Energy Conservation Policies.................................................................. 52 Table 4-6 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency Analysis .................................................... 62 Table 4-7 Projected Potable Water Demand by Sector, 2025 – 2040...................................................................... 73 Table 4-8 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use...................................................................................... 74 Table 4-9 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Residential Development................................. 79 Table 4-10 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM ..................................................................................... 84 Table 4-11 Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................... 98 Table 4-12 Summary of Total Wastewater Flows by Land Use .............................................................................. 105

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 7
1 INTRODUCTION
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Atwater (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. The City of Atwater is the Lead Agency for this proposed Project. The site and the proposed Project are described in detail in SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.

1.1 Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.), also known as the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.

A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five (5) chapters plus appendices. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION provides bases of the IS/MND’s regulatory information and an overview of the Project. SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM provides a detailed description of Project components. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION concludes that the Initial Study is a mitigated negative declaration, identifies the environmental factors potentially affected based on the analyses contained in this IS, and includes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon those analyses. SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analyses for all impact areas and the mandatory findings of significance. A brief discussion of the reasons why the Project impact is anticipated to be potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant, or why no impacts are expected is included. SECTION 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM presents the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project. The CNDDB Occurrence Report,

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 8
CHRIS Search Record, NAHC SLF Results Letter, and CalEEMod Results are provided as Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D respectively, at the end of this document.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 9
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including project location, project objectives, and required project approvals.

2.1 Project Title
7212 Sunset Drive Apartments (General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-19-0200, Zone Change (RZ) 23-19-0100, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 23-19-0300, Variance (VAR) 23-19-0400, and Site Plan Review (SPR) 23-19-0500)

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Atwater
750 Bellevue Road
Atwater, CA 95301

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
City of Atwater
Greg Thompson, Deputy City Manager/ Community
Development Director
(209) 357-6370
[email protected]
Applicant Information
Apex Investment Group, LLC
3319 M Street
Merced, CA 95348
(209) 201-5839
[email protected]

2.4 Study Prepared By
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500

2.5 Project Location
The Project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Atwater, Merced County, California. The site is located on the northwest corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Street at 7212 Sunset Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 (Figure 2-1), consisting of one (1) parcel that is approximately 1.13 acres. The site is identified by the Merced County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 056-540-004-000. Figure 2-2 shows the aerial image of the Project site. The Project site is a portion of Section 11, Township 7 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

2.6 Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project site is 37.33898549055253, -120.61733180930518.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 10
Figure 2-1 Project Location

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 11
Figure 2-2 Project Site Aerial Image

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 12

2.7 General Plan Designation
The Project site has a City of Atwater General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of VLDR – Very Low Density Residential (Figure 2-3). According to the General Plan, the VLDR land use designation “accommodates the needs of residents who desire large parcels and the feeling of open space integrated with a suburban lifestyle.” The permitted density range is 0 to 3.0 units per acre. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-19-0200 would change the land use designation from VLDR to HDR – High Density Residential (Figure 2-4).

2.8 Zoning
The Project site is in the R-E – Residential Estate zoning district (Figure 2-5). Zone Change (RZ) 23-19-0100 would change the zoning from R-E to R-3-1.5 – High Density Residential (Figure 2-6).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 13
Figure 2-3 City of Atwater General Plan Land Use Designation (Existing)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 14
Figure 2-4 City of Atwater General Plan Land Use Designation (Proposed)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 15
Figure 2-5 City of Atwater Zoning District (Existing)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 16
Figure 2-6 City of Atwater Zoning District (Proposed)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 17

2.9 Description of Project
Apex Investment Group, LLC (Applicant) requests General Plan Amendment (GPA 23-19-0200), Zone Change (RZ 23-19-0200), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 23-19-0300), Variance (VAR 23-19-0400), and Site Plan Review (SPR 23- 19-0500) pertaining to a 1.13-acre parcel that is located on the northwest corner of Sunset Drive and Everett Drive at 7212 Sunset Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 (APN: 056-540-004-000).

General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-19-0200 would change the land use designation from VLDR to HDR – High Density Residential (Figure 2-4). According to the General Plan, the HDR land use designation “is intended to provide for multi-family units such as apartments, and/or condominiums in structures up to four stories in height.” The permitted density range is 15.1 to 35 units per acre.

Zone Change (RZ) 23-19-0100 would change the zoning from R-E to R-3-1.5 – High Density Residential (Figure 2-6).

According to Chapter 17.24 of the Atwater Municipal Code (AMC), the purpose of the R-3 zoning district is to “provide for high residential density per acre, while protecting the value and charm of the existing residential areas, and to promote health, safety, comfort, convenience, and the general welfare.” Permitted uses include single-family dwellings, duplex, multi-family structures, supportive housing, transitional housing, and accessory uses customarily appurtenant to single-family residence (i.e., garage, parking, private swimming pools, sheds, home occupation).

The proposed R-3-1.5 zoning district is consistent with the proposed HDR land use designation.

Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 23-19-0300 would split the 1.13-acre parcel into three (3) parcels, including Parcel 1, 15,464 square feet (sf.), Parcel 2, 15,837 sf., and Parcel 3, 18,133 sf. (see Figure 2-7).

Variance (VAR) 23-19-0400 would allow a reduction of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet.

Site Plan Review (SPR) 23-19-0500 would facilitate the development of a 2-story apartment structure on each parcel. Table 2-1 shows the structure size, landscaping, and dwelling units proposed on each parcel. Development would include paved drive aisles, 38 parking stalls, sidewalks, trash enclosures, landscaping, lighting, and underground utilities. Two (2) bioretention areas are proposed for stormwater collection as well as recreation purposes.

Table 2-1 Proposed Development
Proposed Development Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3
Parcel Size 15,464 sf. 15,837 sf. 18,133 sf.

Structure Size 8,140 sf. 7,260 sf. 7,260 sf.

Number of Dwelling Units 9 units 8 units 8 units
Landscaped Area 4,061 sf. 5,749 sf. 7,742 sf.

Lot Coverage 23.5% 22.9% 20.0%
Parking Stalls 12 11 15

2.10 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Project Setting
The Project site is currently vacant with no structures. The site contains existing improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, overhead utilities, and streetlights, to its north, east, and south, along Sunset Drive and Matthew Street. Sunset Drive, a two-lane, east-west local road forms the southerly site boundary. Matthew Street, a twolane loop, forms the eastern and northern site boundary. An aerial image of the Project site is shown in Figure 2-2.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 18
The site is generally flat and does not contain any geologic formations. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as ruderal and herbaceous vegetation with heavy alternation due to discing and grading. There are no trees, shrubs, or water features present on the site.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is generally surrounded by institutional use (north), residential use (east and south), and vacant land (west). As referenced in Table 2-2, properties to the north, east, and west are planned and zoned for residential use, and properties to the south is zoned for agricultural use within the County and planned as urban reserve.

Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from
the Project Site Existing Land Use Planned Land Use Zone District North Atwater Valley Community School Very Low Density Residential R-E Residential Estate South Single-Family Residences Urban Reserve A-1 General Agricultural (County) East Single-Family Residences Very Low Density Residential R-1 Single Family Residential (County)
West vacant Very Low Density Residential R-E Residential Estate

2.11 Site Preparation
Site preparation would include typical grading activities and minor excavation for installation of utility infrastructure for conveyance of water, sewer, stormwater, and irrigation. Demolition will be restricted to areas with newly proposed driveway approachs. Building, grading, encroachment, and site utilities permits would be subject to review and approval by the appropriate agency and/or department to ensure compliance with applicable codes and regulations.

2.12 Project Construction and Phasing
The Project would be constructed in three (3) phases. Phase 1 includes construction of the apartment building on Parcel 2 as well as two (2) ingress/egress points on Matthew Street and Everett Street. Phase 2 includes construction of the apartment building on Parcel 1. Phase 3 includes construction of the apartment building on Parcel 3 as well as the two (2) bioretention areas. Construction is expected to begin in x and conclude in x, with operations beginning in x.

2.13 Project Components
This section describes the overall components of the Project, such as the proposed buildings, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and utilities.

Site Layout and Elevations
As shown in Figure 2-8, the Project proposes a 25-unit multi-family residential development that consists of three (3) residential buildings, 38 parking stalls, two (2) bioretention areas, and associated improvements. The apartment buildings are 8,140 sf., 7,260 sf., and 7,260 sf., with 9 units, 8 units, and 8 units, respectively. Table 2-1 includes a breakdown of the proposed building size, landscaping, and number of parking stalls.

Site Circulation and Parking
The site would be accessible via one (1) point of ingress/egress on Matthew Street and one (1) point of ingress/egress on Everett Street. Existing 5-foot public sidewalks are located along the north, east, and west of the

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 19
site, connecting to existing sidewalks to the adjacent property to the west. Internal circulation of the site would include a 25-foot drive aisle for automobiles and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks for pedestrians. The Project proposes 38 parking stalls including 32 standard open parking stalls, 3 compact parking stalls, and 3 accessible parking stalls. Of the 38 parking stalls, 10% of stalls, or 4 stalls, would be required to be “EV capable” in accordance with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.

Open Space and Landscaping
Proposed open space and landscaping is depicted in Figure 2-8. The Project includes a total of 17,552 square feet of common open space throughout the site, including landscaping and areas for bioretention. 14 trees, shrubs, and ground cover are proposed throughout the interior of the site. Impervious area pre- and post-construction are estimated to be 49,425 square feet and 17,260 square feet, respectively.

Public Services and Utilities
The Project site is within city limits and thus, would be required to connect to water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and solid waste services are provided by private companies.

In addition, the Project would be subject to fees for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services including but not limited to: Fire Protection Services, Police Protection Services, and Schools.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 20
Figure 2-7 Tentative Parcel Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 21
Figure 2-8 Project Site Plan

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 22

2.14 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The Project would require approval by the City of Atwater City Council. The Project will require review, permits, and/or approvals, such as grading, building, and encroachment permits. Other approvals may be required as identified through the entitlement review and approval process.

2.15 Consultation with California Native American Tribes The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).

According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within Merced County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 21, 2023. The listed tribes include Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians*, North Valley Yokut / Ohlone Tribe, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Table Mountain Rancheria*, Tule River Indian Tribe*, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. The NAHC also conducted a Sacred Lands File (SFL) search which was negative. *Federally recognized tribe.

The City of Atwater conducted formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on January 9, 2024, to the aforementioned tribes. Consultation for AB 52 ends on February 9, 2024, and consultation for SB 18 ends on April 8, 2024. No responses have been received to-date.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 23
3 DETERMINATION

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire

For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
“No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
“Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.
“Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
“Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

3.2 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 24
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.

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

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

Approved By:

Greg Thompson, City Manager/Community Development Director Date City of Atwater, Community Development Department

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 25
4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock out-croppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, aesthetics may include scenic vistas and scenic resources (e.g. trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, and highways). The City of Atwater’s visual features predominately includes urbanized and agricultural land uses. The Atwater General Plan (General Plan) recognizes the city’s scenic resources to be “open space areas” (i.e., agricultural lands) in addition to several transportation routes or “scenic corridors”. The General Plan does not identify or designate “scenic vistas.” The identified scenic corridors include Atwater Boulevard, First Street, Bellevue Road, Shaffer Road, Winton Way, Broadway from Winton Way to First Street, Buhach Road, Third Street, Part of Grove Avenue, and all entrances to the city. Although there are two (2) state-designated scenic highways in the County of Merced (SR 152 and Interstate 5), these highways are not within city limits and thus, the City does not designate them as scenic resources. Lastly, the General Plan identifies places of contemporary historical significance in the city including the Bloss Manson, Bloss Library, and Castle Air Museum.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 26
The Project site is currently vacant with improvements along all street frontages. The site is generally flat and does not contain any geologic formations. The Project site is generally surrounded by institutional use (north), residential use (east and south), and vacant land (west).

California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 with the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape 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. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site. 1

4.1.2 Impact Assessment
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Project site is vacant and surrounded by urban development. The site is not adjacent to scenic corridors identified in the General Plan. In addition, the site is not near state-designated scenic highways and does not contain any historic buildings or places of contemporary historical significance according to the General Plan.

As a result, the Project would not adversely affect scenic vistas and no impact would occur because of the Project. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock out-croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by urban development, including institutional and residential uses. Development of the Project site, including three (3) 2-story apartment buildings, will not have a significantly different character from the surrounding area. Further, the proposed use is subject to compliance with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, which will ensure the minimization of any visual impact by upholding the visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Through the entitlement process, the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable policies and regulations that govern scenic quality including but not limited to the General Plan, AMC, and California Building 1 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 27
Code (CBC). Compliance would ensure that development of the site would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are associated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, cars, and trucks). Development of the Project site would incrementally increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting, and vehicular headlights. Such sources could create adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the area.

As mentioned above, the Project would introduce new light sources into the area, including temporary light and glare resulting from construction activities that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Although construction activities are anticipated to occur primarily during daylight hours, it is possible that some activities could occur during dusk or early evening hours (pursuant to Atwater Municipal Code Section 8.44.050, construction activities are allowed between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM). Construction during these time periods could result in light and glare from construction vehicles or equipment. However, construction would occur primarily during daylight hours and would be temporary in nature. Once construction is completed, any light and glare from these activities would cease to occur.

Regarding operations, the Project includes lighting fixtures to provide interior lighting, lamps, outdoor lighting, etc.

Lighting design would be required to comply with the AMC, which contains specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions intended to prevent light and glare impacts (pursuant to Atwater Municipal Code Section

8.32.030, the City does not allow lights, lighted signs, or other devices that direct or reflect glare onto public rightof-way or neighboring properties). The lighting design guide covers outdoor spaces including regulations for mounted luminaires (i.e., high efficacy, motion sensor controlled, time clocks, energy management control systems, etc.). As such, conditions imposed on the Project by the City of Atwater, in addition to Title 24 requirements, would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant impact.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 28

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farm-land), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the Atwater city limits and is planned and zoned for residential uses. The site is generally flat and does not contain any geologic formations. The Project site is generally surrounded by institutional use, residential use, and vacant land. The Project site is currently vacant with improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, overhead utilities, and streetlights, to its north, east, and south, along Sunset Drive and Matthew Street.

The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as ruderal and herbaceous vegetation with heavy alternation due to discing and grading. There are no trees, shrubs, or water features present on the site. Lastly, the Project site does not contain any agricultural or forestry resources such as agricultural land, forest land, or timberland.

Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 29
The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland” which is defined by the FMMP as “farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 2 Maps are updated every two years. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site, and all properties in its immediate vicinity are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” 3

California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value. The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 years and automatically renews upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite. The Project site is not subject to the Williamson Act.

4.2.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to the FMMP, the Project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” As such, the Project site is not located on lands designated as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to the Williamson Act. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 2 California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx 3 California Department of Conservation. (2018). California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 30
No Impact. The Project site does is not planned or zoned for forest land or timberland. Further, the Project site would not cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As a result, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land and is not planned or zoned for forest land or forest uses.

Development of the Project site would therefore not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As a result, no impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. The Project site is planned and zoned for residential uses and does not contain agricultural or forestry uses or resources. The properties in the immediate vicinity of the Project site also do not contain agricultural or forestry uses or resources. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site and the properties in its immediate vicinity are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Therefore, future development of the Project site with residential development would be generally consistent with the existing environment of the surrounding, urbanized, and non-agricultural or forestry uses. As a result, the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 31

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Atwater lies within the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin that is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to the east, Coastal Ranges to the west, and Tehachapi mountains to the south. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in eight counties including: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The SJVAPCD oversees the SJVAB.

Impacts on air quality result from emissions generated during short-term activities (construction) and long-term activities (operations). Construction-related emissions consist mainly of exhaust emissions (NOx and PM) from construction equipment and other mobile sources, and fugitive dust (PM) emissions from earth moving activities.

Operational emissions are source specific and consist of permitted equipment and activities and non-permitted equipment and activities.

Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural (nonanthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. Four main sources of air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB are motor vehicles, industrial plants, agricultural activities, and construction activities. All four (4) of the major pollutant sources affect ambient air quality throughout the SJVAB. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air. Air pollutants can remain in the atmosphere for long periods and can build to unhealthful levels when stagnant conditions that are common in the San Joaquin Valley occur. Pollutants are transported downwind from urban areas with many emission sources which are also recirculated back to the urban areas.

Further, the SJVAB is in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. Air quality standards have been set to protect

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 32
public health, particularly the health of vulnerable people. Therefore, if the concentration of those contaminants exceeds the norm, some susceptible individuals in the population are likely to experience health effects.

Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the individual's reaction are factors that affect the extent and nature of the health effects.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SJVAB, within which the Project is located. Responsibilities of the SJVAPCD include, but are not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution and responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA.

The SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may apply to projects that will occur during buildout of the project include but are not limited to the following:

Rule 2010 – Permits Required. The purpose of this rule is to require any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate. This rule also explains the posting requirements for a Permit to Operate and the illegality of a person willfully altering, defacing, forging, counterfeiting or falsifying any Permit to Operate.

Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the following:

The review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and to provide mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards; and No net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors.

Rule 4001 – New Source Performance Standards. This rule incorporates the New Source Performance Standards from Part 60, Chapter 1, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This rule incorporates the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Rule 4102 – Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 33
Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The purpose of Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review. The purposes of this rule are to:

1. Fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans.

2. Achieve emission reductions from the construction and use of development projects through design features and on-site measures.

3. Provide a mechanism for reducing emissions from the construction of and use of development projects through off-site measures.

Thresholds of Significance
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the SJVAPCD has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). SJVAPCD recommends a three (3)-tiered approach to air quality analysis based on project size to allow quick screening for CEQA impacts:

1. Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL): based on the District’s New Source Review, the District pre-quantified emissions and determined values as thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Residential, commercial, retail, industrial, educational, and recreational land uses are eligible to use this for screening.

The SPAL was published on November 13, 2020, by the SJVAPCD to determine potential impacts in GAMAQI.4 SPAL is based on a CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.

2. Cursory Analysis Level (CAL): CAL is used to determine significance on projects that exceed the SPAL criteria.

Analysis includes using CalEEMod to estimate emissions and air pollutants.

3. Full Analysis Level (FAL): this level of analysis is usually required for an EIR. It requires a full air quality report that describes impacts on the public.

GAMAQI also includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short-term construction, long-term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the SJVAPCD-recommended thresholds of significance are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on human health and welfare. The thresholds of significance are summarized, as follows:
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2020). “Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL)”. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 34
Criteria Air Pollutants
SJVAPCD adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, as shown in Table 4-1. The thresholds of significance are based on a calendar year basis. For construction emissions, the annual emissions are evaluated on a rolling 12-month period. The following summarizes these thresholds:

Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the feasible control measures for construction in compliance with Regulation VIII as listed in the SJVAPCD guidelines are not incorporated or implemented, or if project-generated emissions would exceed 15 tons per year (TPY).

Short-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of PM10 that exceed 15 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of ROG or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Table 4-1 SJVAPCD Recommended Air Quality Thresholds of Significance2F 5 Pollutant Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions (tons/year) Operational Emission (tons/year) CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching the attainment of air quality standards. The applicable AQP for the SJVAB is the GAMAQI. Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the Project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) or PM10 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the Project would be considered to be conflicting with the AQP. In addition, if the Project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, the Project may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans. Vehicle Miles Traveled are analyzed in Section 4.17.

Local Mobile-Source CO Concentrations
5 SJVAPCD. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 35
Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the CAAQS (i.e., 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 10 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than one (1).

As recommended by the SJVAPCD, the latest approved California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) methodology was utilized as the TAC screening methodology. According to the CAPCOA Guidance Document titled “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” there are two types of land use project that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts. These project types are as follows:
• Type A: Land use projects with toxic emissions that impact receptors, and • Type B: Land use project that will place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

In this Guidance document, Type A projects examples are (project impacts receptors):
• combustion related power plants,
• gasoline dispensing facilities,
• asphalt batch plants,
• warehouse distribution centers,
• quarry operations, and
• other stationary sources that emit toxic substances.

Odor
The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants. The SJVAPCD has identified these common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB and has prepared screening levels for potential odor sources ranging from one to two miles of distance from the odor-producing facility to sensitive receptors. Odor impacts would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

Ambient Air Quality
The SJVAPCD applies the following guidance in determining whether an ambient air quality analysis should be performed: when assessing the significance of project-related impacts on air quality, it should be noted that the impacts may be significant when on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures. Under such circumstances, the SJVAPCD recommends that an ambient air quality analysis be performed.

Small Project Analysis Level

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 36
The SPAL identifies pre-quantified emissions and determined values related to project type, size, and number of vehicle trips. According to the SPAL, projects that fit specified descriptions are deemed to have a less than significant impact on air quality and as such are excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes.

Methodology
SJVACPD’s Guidelines recommend using the CalEEMod software program to calculate project emissions. CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The Project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0.

4.3.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan if the Project does not exceed the adopted quantitative thresholds for criteria pollutant emissionsthat are established in the GAMAQI, as demonstrated in the Thresholds of Significance above. As stated above, the SJVAPCD recommends a three (3)- tiered approach to analyze projects for significant impacts on air quality. The first tier is the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL), which adopts a threshold of significance according to the use type, size, and number of vehicle trips of a project. As demonstrated below, the proposed Project would not have any significant effects relating to air quality pursuant to SPAL.

Based on the Project description, the most applicable land use type for the proposed Project is Low Rise Apartment.

The Project proposes the development of three (3) apartment buildings totaling 25 dwelling units. The corresponding threshold for this land use compared to the Project is shown in Table 4-2. As shown, the Project is below all thresholds and therefore, the Project is assumed to result in air quality impacts that are below the identified thresholds of significance and thus, a less than significant impact would occur.

Table 4-2 SPAL Significance Thresholds
SPAL Threshold Proposed Project Exceed
Threshold?
Size/Unit 224 dwelling units 25 dwelling units No
Average Daily One-way Trips for All Fleet Types
(Except Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT)) * 800 168.5 No
Average Daily One-way for HHDT trips only
(50-mile trip length) 15 0 No
* Average daily trips generated by the Project is estimated using ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. See detailed calculations in Section 4.17 TRANSPORTATION.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 37
Less than Significant Impact. The SJVAB is in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. The requirements have been set to protect public health, particularly the health of vulnerable populations. Therefore, if the concentration of those contaminants exceeds the norm, some susceptible individuals in the population are likely to experience health effects. Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the individual's reaction are factors that affect the extent and nature of the health effects as analyzed in criterion a) above, the Project would have a less than significant impact on air quality and are excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative health impacts because the emissions are not at a level that would be considered cumulatively significant. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family residences located adjacent to Everett Street, approximately 90 feet east of the Project site, and Atwater Community School, approximately 150 feet north of the site (measured from the Project’s property line to existing structures of the sensitive receptors. As stated under criterion a) above, emissions during construction or operation would not reach the significance thresholds and would not be anticipated to result in concentrations that reach or surpass ambient air quality requirements.

Further, anticipated development that would result from Project implementation would not be uses that would generate toxic emissions (i.e., Type A uses identified by the CAPCOA guidelines). Although emissions would be emitted during construction of the site (i.e., through diesel fuel and exhaust from equipment), emissions would be temporary and last only during construction activities. In addition, construction activities would be required to comply with all rules and regulations administered by the SJVAPCD including but not limited to Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review), Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 4402 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Specific uses and operations that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants. The Project would not consist of such land uses; rather, implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate the development of three (3) apartment buildings with a total of 25 dwelling units, and thus is unlikely to produce odors that would be considered to adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 38

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan.

X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 39

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the Atwater city limits and is planned and zoned for residential use. The Project site is currently vacant with no structures. The site contains existing improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, overhead utilities, and streetlights, to its north, east, and south, along Sunset Drive and Matthew Street.

The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as ruderal and herbaceous vegetation with heavy alternation due to discing and grading. There are no trees, shrubs, or water features present on the site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Special-Status Species Database The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) operates an “Information for Planning and Consultation” (IPaC) database, which is a project planning tool for the environmental review process that provides general information on the location of special-status species that are “known” or “expected” to occur (note: the database does not provide occurrences; refer to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database below). 6 i Specifically, the IPaC database identifies nine (9) special-status species that are potentially affected by activities in the Project site including: San Joaquin Kit Fox (endangered), Northwestern Pond Turtle (proposed threatened), California Tiger Salamander (threatened), Monarch Butterfly (candidate), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (threatened), conservancy fairy shrimp (endangered), vernal pool fairy shrimp (threatened), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (endangered), Colusa grass (threatened).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife – Critical Habitat Report
Once a species is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to determine whether there are areas that meet the definition of Critical Habitat. Per NOAA Fisheries, Critical Habitat is defined as:
• Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and
• Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. 7
The process of Critical Habitat designation is complex and involves the consideration of scientific data, public and peer review, economic, national security, and other relevant impacts.

According to the Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Report updated November 28, 2023, the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site and its immediate vicinity (0.5-mile radius from the site) are not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat. 8 No critical habitats are identified in the city limits. The closest 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information and Planning Consultation Online System. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ 7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Critical Habitat. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#key-regulations 8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife. (2021). ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System - USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report (updated March 23, 2023). Accessed December 12, 2023, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 40
federally designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest and 5.9 northeast of the Project site designated for the Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana).

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – National Wetlands Inventory The USFWS provides a National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) with detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of U.S. wetlands. A search of the NWI shows no federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity (0.5-mile radius) of the Project site. 9 The NWI does not identify any water features within the Project site. The closest water feature is the irrigation canal identified is a 25.5-acre R4SBCx riverine habitat, 0.1 miles southwest of the Project site. R4SBCx indicates Riverine System (R) with flowing water only part of the year (4) that is completely dewatered at low tide (SB) and seasonally flooded (C) and has been excavated by humans (x) (i.e., canal).

Additionally, the Project site is not within or adjacent to a riparian area nor does the site contain water features.

Environmental Protection Agency – WATERS Geoviewer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WATERS GeoViewer provides a GeoPlatform based web mapping application of water features by location. According to the WATERS GeoViewer, there is a catchment within the Project site, where a catchment is defined as a local drainage area for a specific stream segment. An irrigation canal runs to the north of the Project site. There are no streams, canals, or waterbodies on the Project site. 10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Natural Diversity Database The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) operates the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California in addition to the reported occurrences of such species.11 According to the CDFW CNDDB, there are 11 special-status species with a total of 24 occurrences that have been observed and reported to the CDFW in or near the Atwater Quad as designated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Of the 11 species, there are five (5) federally or state-listed species:
tricolored blackbird, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Swainson’s hawk, Colusa grass, and San Joaquin kit fox. 12 Appendix A lists the CNDDB-identified animal and plant species within the Atwater Quad, including their habitat and occurrences.

The CNDDB also provides CNDDB-known occurrences within a set geographic radius. Figure 4-5 shows the CNDDBidentified occurrences of animal and plant species within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site. Table 4-3 lists all federally or state-listed special-status species CNDDB-known occurrences within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site. As shown, the nearest occurrence is the San Joaquin kit fox occurrence 1.8 miles northeast of the Project site, dated 1999. Other species that are not federally or state-listed that are near the Project site include burrowing owl. The CNNDB ranks occurrences by the condition of habitat and ability of the species to persist over 9 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 12, 2023, https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WATERS GeoViewer. Accessed December 12, 2023, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=074cfede236341b6a1e03779c2bd0692 11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed December 12, 2023, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System 6. Accessed December 12, 2023, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx#

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 41
time. As shown, the occurrences within the five (5)-mile radius of the Project site are ranked as poor, fair, and good.

Table 4-4 provides an analysis of essential habitats and the potential for the existence of the special-status species to exist on the Project site.

Table 4-3 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5-mile radius of Project site Species Date Rank Distance to site
San Joaquin kit fox 1999/08/20 Poor 1.8 miles northeast Swainson’s hawk 2007/06/28 Good 3.4 miles northeast
Tricolored blackbird 1971/05/09 Unknown 3.4 miles southeast Vernal pool fairy shrimp 1997/02/13 Fair 3.8 miles northeast Western pond turtle 2006/10/13 Fair 3.8 miles northeast Swainson’s hawk 2008/05/14 Fair 3.8 miles southeast
Swainson’s hawk 2008/05/14 Fair 3.9 miles southeast
California tiger salamander 2016/02/17 Fair 4.4 miles northeast succulent owl's-clover 1997/04/19 Poor 4.5 miles northeast succulent owl's-clover 1997/04/19 Poor 4.6 miles northeast Only federally or state-listed threatened/endangered/candidate species are listed in the table.

Extirpated or possible extirpated occurrences are not shown in the table.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 42
Figure 4-1 CNDDB Species Occurrences

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 43
Table 4-4 Essential Habitats and Potential Existence of Special-Status Species on Site Special-Status
Species General Habitat Micro Habitat Assessment
San Joaquin
kit fox
Annual grasslands or grassy
open stages with scattered
shrubby vegetation.

Need loose-textured sandy
soils for burrowing, and
suitable prey base.

The Project site consists of sand and
sandy loam and is covered by ruderal
vegetation, which could be suitable
habitat for San Joaquin kit fox.

However, the Project site is small and
is located within an urbanized area
with surrounding institutional and
residential development. In addition,
the occurrence of the San Joaquin kit
fox records movement along the
irrigation canal north of the site, which
is approximately 1.8 miles north of the
Project site. As such, there is little
potential for the existence of San
Joaquin kit fox on the Project site.

Succulent
owl’s-clover
Vernal pools. Moist places, often in acidic
soils. 20-705 m.

The Project site does not contain water
features. As such, the site does not
provide suitable habitat.

California
tiger
salamander
Lives in vacant or mammaloccupied burrows
throughout most of the year;
in grassland, savanna, or
open woodland habitats.

Need underground refuges,
especially ground squirrel
burrows, and vernal pools or
other seasonal water
sources for breeding.

The Project site does not contain
grassland, burrows, woodland, or
waterbodies. As such, the site does not
provide suitable habitat.

Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Endemic to the grasslands of
the Central Valley, Central
Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in astatic
rain-filled pools.

Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools
and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt-flow
depression pools.

The Project site does not contain
grassland or waterbodies. As such, the
site does not provide suitable habitat.

Swainson’s
hawk
Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper-sage
flats, riparian areas,
savannahs, and agricultural
or ranch lands with groves or
lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or grain
fields supporting rodent
populations.

The Project site does not contain
grassland, alfalfa, or grain fields. As
such, the site does not provide suitable
habitat.

Tricolored
blackbird
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in central valley
and vicinity. Largely endemic
to California.

Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the
colony.

The Project site does not contain any
open water. As such, the site does not
provide suitable habitat.

Western
pond turtle
A thoroughly aquatic turtle
of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft
elevation.

Needs basking sites and
suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland
habitat up to 0.5 km from
water for egg-laying.

The Project site does not contain any
open water. As such, the site does not
provide suitable habitat.

California Fish and Game Code

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 44
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protect native birds and raptors.

Mitigation for avoidance of impacts to nesting birds is typically necessary to comply with these Sections of the Fish and Game Code in CEQA. 13
Section 3503: It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

Section 3503.5: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birdsof-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 3513: It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.

City of Atwater General Plan (2000)
The Atwater General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identified 21 special-status species to have the potential to occur and five (5) species have been observed in or near the Atwater Planning Area. It maps the location of special-status species in the city’s Planning area, and none are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Atwater General Plan14 outlined policies related to the conservation of biological resources:

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

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

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

4.4.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 13 The California Biologist's Handbook. California Fish and Game Code. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://biologistshandbook.com/regulations/state-regulations/state-fish-and-gamecode/#:~:text=Section%203503,any%20regulation%20made%20pursuant%20thereto.%E2%80%9D 14 City of Atwater, California. (2000). City of Atwater 2000 General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/docs/generalplan/CHAPTER_4__OPEN_SPACE_AND_C.PDF

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 45
Less than Significant Impact. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the Project site can be defined primarily as ruderal and herbaceous vegetation with heavy alternation due to discing and grading. There are no structures, trees, or shrubs on site. No water features are present.

As described in Table 4-5, the site conditions provide low suitability for habitat for special-status candidate, sensitive, or special-status species that may occur on the Project site or vicinity. However, there is one (1) recorded occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox located 1.8 miles northeast of the Project site, dated 1999. The Project site consists of sand and sandy loam and is covered by ruderal vegetation, which could be suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. However, the Project site is small and is located within an urbanized area with surrounding institutional and residential development. In addition, the occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox records movement along the irrigation canal north of the site, which is approximately 1.8 miles north of the Project site. As such, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. According to the General Plan and CDFW and USFWS databases, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project.

In addition, the site does not contain any water features that would provide habitat for riparian species. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project site does not provide any riparian or sensitive natural community habitat and thus, no impact would occur because of the Project. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Based on the search of the NWI, the Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. As a result, it can be determined that the Project site would not result in any impact on state or federally protected wetlands and no impact would occur because of the Project. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are linear habitats that function to connect two (2) or more areas of significant wildlife habitat. These corridors may function on a local level as links between small habitat patches (e.g., streams in urban settings) or may provide critical connections between regionally significant habitats (e.g., deer movement corridors). Wildlife corridors typically include vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of wildlife from one area of suitable habitat to another, in order to fulfill foraging, breeding, and territorial needs. These corridors often provide cover and protection from predators that may be lacking in surrounding habitats. Wildlife corridors generally include riparian zones and similar linear expanses of contiguous habitat.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 46
According to the Figure 4-5, we can see that the occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox near the Project site, dated 1999, moves along the irrigation canal. As such, the irrigation canal might be a movement corridor for the San Joaquin kit fox. However, that irrigation canal is approximately 1.8 miles north of the Project site. Additionally, as described in Table 4-5, the Project site does not contain habitat that could support wildlife species in nesting, foraging, or escaping from predators. This is based on the existing conditions of the site including the site’s heavy disturbance and lack of cover, vegetation, water features, and surrounding urban development (i.e., institutional and residential development). Due to these conditions, it can be determined that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement and a less than significant impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Atwater General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element outlined policies related to conservation of biological resources, as listed in the Environmental Setting above. In addition, Chapter

12.32 of the Atwater Municipal Code (AMC) identifies the city’s tree policies and Section 12.32.080 addresses new construction. Planting, maintenance, and removal of existing trees on the Project site would be subject to compliance with these standards and regulations. However, there are no trees within the Project site. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project site is within the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery goals for several species. The Project would not conflict with the plan since the site does not provide appropriate habitat for the species mentioned and would comply to applicable General Plan policies regarding habitat conservation. The City, County, and Regional Planning Agency do not have any other adopted or approved plans for habitat or natural community conservation. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.