Atwater City Council
August 26, 2024

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.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 47

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?

X

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

X

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, cultural resources are considered “historical resources” that meet criteria in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. If a Lead Agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource, then the project is determined to have a significant impact on the environment. No further environmental review is required if a cultural resource is not found to be a historical resource.

California Historical Resource Information System Record Search The Central California Information Center (CCIC) was requested to conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding “Project Area” (0.5-mile radiusfrom perimeter of Project site). Results of the CHRIS Record Search were provided on December 12, 2023 (Record Search File Number 12747I). Full results are provided in Appendix B.

The CHRIS Record Searches generally review file information based on results of Class III pedestrian reconnaissance surveys of project sites conducted by qualified individuals or consultant firms which are required to be submitted, along with official state forms properly completed for each identified resource, to the Regional Archaeological Information Center. Guidelines for the format and content of all types of archaeological reports have been developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and reports will be reviewed by the regional information centers to determine whether they meet those requirements.

The results of the CCIC CHRIS Record Search indicate:
(1) There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
(2) The project area is within the overall boundary of the proposed “Merced Irrigation District” (P-24-001909), listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Merced County

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 48
with a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) rating of “6Y”, determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for local listing. There do not appear to be any contributing water conveyance features to the district within the project area.
(3) The General Land Office survey plat for T7S R12E (dated 1855) does not reference any historical land divisions or features with Section 11.

Further, the CCIC provided the following comments and recommendations:
(1) 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. (2) 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. (3) Mitigate archaeological resources that could potentially be encountered during construction.

California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
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 Trib/Eshom Valley Band.*Federally recognized tribe. The NAHC also conducted a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check which received negative results. Correspondence is provided in Appendix C.

AB 52 and SB 18 Tribal Consultation
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.

4.5.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the CHRIS Record Search conducted on December 13, 2023, there are no local, state, or federal designated historical resources on the Project site or within the Project area. Further, the Project site has been highly disturbed as it has been used for agricultural operations. As such, the Project would not cause a change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and therefore, the Project would have no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on December 13, 2023, there are no known archeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 on the Project site.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 49
While there is no evidence that archeological 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 archeological resources 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.

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. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. If any human remains are discovered during construction, then the Project would be subject to CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Regulations contained in these sections address and protect human burial remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, are less than significant. The Project incorporates Mitigation Measure CULT-2 to mitigate the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains on the Project site during construction. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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:
• 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.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 50
• 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.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CULT-1 and CULT-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 | 51

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Appendix F – Energy Conservation of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of energy implications in project decisions, including a discussion of the potential energy impacts with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Per Appendix F, a project would be considered inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity, had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms, and effected energy resources.

The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in an effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. They apply to new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings and relate to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting. 15 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, was developed in 2007 to meet the state goals for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions pursuant to AB32. CALGreen covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. 16 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees air pollution control efforts, regulations, and programs that contribute to reduction of energy consumption. Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs ensuresthat development will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources. Lastly, the Energy Action Plan 15 California Energy Commission. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energyefficiency 16 California Department of General Services. (2020). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CGBC2019P3

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 52
(EAP) for California was approved in 2003 by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The EAP established goals and next steps to integrate and coordinate energy efficiency demand and response programs and actions. 17 4.6.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of three (3) apartment buildings totaling 25 dwelling units. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities. All construction equipment shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies. In addition, through compliance with applicable CARB regulations (Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards, it can be determined that the proposed Project would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. For these reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under criterion a), the construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable energy efficiency regulations. Thus, applicable state and local regulations and programs would be implemented to reduce energy waste from construction and operations. Table 4-5 demonstrates that the Project does not conflict with or obstruct with the energy conservation/efficiency policies identified in the General Plan.

Table 4-5 Consistency with General Plan Energy Conservation Policies General Plan Energy Conservation Policies Consistency/Applicability Determination Policy CO-7.1. Encourage the incorporation of
energy conservation features into new
development, such as high-density development,
bikeways and pedestrian paths, proper solar
orientation, and transit routes and facilities.

Consistent. The development of the Project proposes a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to increase the
density of residential development on the site. In addition, the Project proposes sidewalks and is near existing urban development, including Atwater Valley Community School
(adjacent) and commercial/services (0.2 miles northeast of the Project site). As such, the Project incorporates energy conservation features, including high-density development and proximity to amenities.

Therefore, through compliance, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for energy efficiency and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
17 State of California. (2008). Energy Action Plan 2008 Update. Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/28715.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 53
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 54

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or Indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction? X
iv. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 55
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Atwater is located within the San Joaquin Valley which is part of the Great Valley Geomorphic Providence that is bounded to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, to the west by the Coastal Range, and to the south by the Tehachapi mountains. Atwater has infrequent and low historic seismic activity. In addition, the city has no known active earthquake faults (i.e., faults showing activity within the last 11,000 years) and is not in any AlquistPriolo Special Studies Zones. 18 19 The nearest faults are approximately 20 miles to the northeast in the Sierra Nevada Range (i.e., the Bear Mountain Fault) and approximately 30 miles to the southwest in the Diablo/Coastal Range (i.e., the San Joaquin, O’Neill, and Ortigalita Faults). The Ortigalita Fault is the nearest fault within the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone; the fault has not been historically active. Earthquakes from nearby faults would most likely generate ground motion of shaking, but there is no history of this causing damage in the area. Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) would be sufficient to prevent significant damage during seismic events.

Subsurface Soils
A search of the Web Soil Survey by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the following soils comprise the Project site: 20
AnA: Atwater sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, well drained, and negligible runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches, with no flooding or ponding. The AnA soils account for 100% of the Project site.

California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the International Building Code with necessary California amendments. About one-third of the text within the California Building Standards Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. Construction within the City of Atwater is governed by the seismic safety standards of Chapter 16 of the Code. These standards are applicable to all new buildings and are required to provide the necessary safety from earthquake related effected emanating from fault activity.

18 According to the California Department of Conservation, “An active fault, for the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years.”
19 California Department of Conservation. “CGS Seismic Hazard Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones.” Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=37.213952%2C117.946341%2C7.19 20 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed on December 12, 2023, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 56

4.7.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site, nor is the City of Atwater within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. As such, development of the Project in an area void of earthquake faults would not cause rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an area that is traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. Additionally, development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code (CBC), which would limit potential damage to structures and thereby reduce potential impacts including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. No liquefaction nor lateral spreading have been observed in Atwater from any historic earthquake.

Liquefaction and lateral spreading potential in Atwater are considered very low as due to the nature of the underlying soils, relatively deep-water table, and history of low ground shaking potential. In addition, there are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the Project site. The site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. As CEQA requires an analysis of a Project’s impact on the environment rather than the environment’s impacts on a Project, no impacts would occur. Therefore, because the Project does not have any aspect that could result in seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, the Project would have no impact.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are not expected to affect the Project site as the City of Atwater is not located in a zone where landslides, subsidence, or liquefaction could possibly occur. 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. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity. The Project site is relatively flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. Development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 57
during construction is largely caused by the use of water. Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with applicable standards. Development of the Project would be required to comply with AMC Chapter 12.22 – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, which requires that any person performing construction activities in the City shall prevent pollutants from entering the storm water conveyance system and comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances or regulations, including but not limited to, the current California NPDES general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity (construction general permit). All construction projects, regardless of size, having soil disturbance or activities exposed to storm water must, at a minimum, implement best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment controls, soil stabilization, dewatering, source controls, pollution prevention measures, and prohibited discharges. Implementation of the BMPs minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. In addition, the City’s Public Works and Building Departments prepare a standard set of conditions for proposed development to the control of dust emissions during grading and other earth moving activities.

The likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Namely, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. With these provisions in place, impacts on soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. Subsidence typically occurs in areas with groundwater withdrawal or oil or natural gas extraction. The topography of the site is relatively flat with stable, native soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic-related hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with native soils of sand and sandy loam, which is not expansive. As such, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 58
No Impact. The Project site is within Atwater’s city limits and thus, would be required to connect to the city’s wastewater services. Thus, no permanent septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed, and no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section above, there are no known paleontological resources or unique geological features known to the City of Atwater on this site. In addition, the Project site is heavily disturbed as it has been previously developed. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried resource site, or feature may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. As such, the Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL1 as described in Section 4.5. Therefore, if any paleontological resources or geologic features were discovered, implementation of CUL-1 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 59

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
In assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may consider the following:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting;
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, guidance from the SJVAPCD, and City of Atwater General Plan are discussed below and are utilized as thresholds of significance. 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
The CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan is the adopted statewide plan for reduction and mitigation of GHGs to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. AB 1279 was issued on August 12, 2022 to require California to achieve “net zero greenhouse gas emissions” as soon as possible and to further reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions thereafter.

It sets a statewide goal to reduce emissions 85% below 1990 levels no later than 2045.

Consequently, the Scoping Plan involves several measures for cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions, including continuing existing programs such as Renewable Portfolio Standard, Advanced Clean Cars, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, etc., and achieving new mandates to decarbonize several sectors. Along with reducing emissions, environmental justice policies are included to address the ongoing air quality disparities.

Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan include recommendations to build momentum for local government actions to align with State goals, including through CEQA review. The Appendix outlines the priority GHG reduction

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 60
strategies for local governments, including transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization. 21
SJVAPCD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA (2009) provides screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance. 22,23 These criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant climate change impact (see below). Projects that meet one of these criteria would have less than significant impact on the global climate.
• Does the project comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions? If no, then:
• Does the project achieve 29% GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards (BPS)? If no, then
• Does the project achieve AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with Business As Usual (BAU)?
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was enacted by the California State legislature in 2006 with the aim to reduce GHG emissions to levels of 1990 by 2020. Recommended actions to achieve these aims were adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2008 (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan). However, the 29% GHG emission reductions compared to BAU threshold is outdated since it is aimed to meet AB 32’s 2020 goals, thus this threshold would not be used for analysis.

The City of Atwater does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan or GHG Reduction Plan. Because BPS have not yet been adopted and identified for specific development projects, and because the City of Atwater has not yet adopted a plan for reduction of GHG with which the Project can demonstrate compliance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan and guidance from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) will be used as the threshold of significance.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land‐use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency in 2009. It recognized that project-specific emissions are cumulative and could be considered cumulatively considerable without mitigation. SJVAPCD suggested that the requirement to reduce GHG emissions for all projects is the best method to address this cumulative impact. 21 California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D. Accessed on December 13, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf 22 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Accessed December 13, 2023, http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 23 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2000). Environmental Review Guidelines: Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Accessed December 13, 2023, http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/ERG%20Adopted%20_August%202000_.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 61
The SJVAPCD requires quantification of GHG emissions for all projects which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required. Although an EIR is not required for the Project, the GHG emissions are quantified below. Shortterm construction and long-term operational GHG emissions for project buildout were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0). (See Appendix D). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

City of Atwater General Plan
At the local level, while the City of Atwater General Plan does not meet criteria of the CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b)(3) for an appropriate GHG emissions reduction plan or program, the General Plan does have goals and policies relevant to climate change and minimizing GHG emissions and other pollutants, with an overall aim to reduce air quality impacts on the environment. These goals and policies are outlined in the Open Space and Conservation Element (CO), “Air Quality”, and Safety Element (SF), “Wind Erosions and Dust Storms”.

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

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

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

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

GOAL SF-7. Prevent activities that contribute to increased wind erosion.

Policy SF-7.1. Require all projects that involve grading or other earth moving activities to implement dust control measures to reduce dust emissions.

4.8.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The 2023 CEQA Guidelines do not establish a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG impacts, leaving lead agencies the discretion to establish such thresholds for their respective jurisdictions.

Since the SJVAPCD does not have established GHG significance emissions thresholds and the City of Atwater does not have an adopted CAP for CEQA tiering purposes, the following utilizes qualitative analysis for greenhouse gas emission impacts. Short-term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions for project buildout were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0). See Appendix D for output files.

Construction Emissions

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 62
In regard to construction, the SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing pollution associated with construction, as pollution-related construction will be temporary. These construction GHG emissions are a one-time release. As such, it can be anticipated that these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change over the lifetime of the Project.

Operational Emissions
Regarding the long-term operational related GHG emissions, the estimated operational emissions for buildout of the Project incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for GHG for construction and operational emissions. The BAAQMD also adopted the 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold. Utilizing this as the threshold, annual operational emissions below 10,000 MTCO2e would have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHGs. The annual operational GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Project is 231.2964 MT CO2e based on the CalEEMod run. This is less than the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold of the SCAQMD and BAAQMD.

Further, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for construction or operational emissions as discussed in Section 4.3. Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, the Project would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction measures, including CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SJVAPCD guidelines, and the City of Atwater General Plan goals and policies that aim to reduce air emissions and improve air quality, which reduces GHG emissions as a result. Cumulatively, these emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed Project. As such, it can be determined that the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The compatibility of the Project with the 2022 Scoping Plan and MCAP, MCAG RTP/SCS, SJVAPCD CCAP, and applicable goals in the Atwater General Plan.

Consistency with the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
Based on the evaluation shown in Table 4-6, the Project is consistent with the reduction measures identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The reduction measures are derived from the 2022 Scoping Plan Table 1 – Priority GHG Reduction Strategies, which provides 3 priority areas to assist jurisdictions with developing local climate action plans.

Table 4-6 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency Analysis Priority Areas Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Consistency/Applicability Determination Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to ZEVs and provide EV
charging at public sites.

Not Applicable. The Project proposes
residential units and is thus not intended to
be accessible to the public. However, the
Project is subject to provide 10% of the total
number of parking spaces to provide electric
vehicle (EV) charging spaces.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 63
Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building
standards that exceed state building codes, permit
streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).

Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project.

VMT Reduction

Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards. Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy thus is not applicable to the Project.

Implement Complete Streets policies and investments,
consistent with general plan circulation element
requirements.

Not Applicable. No roadways are proposed as
part of the Project.

Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by
increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.

Consistent. The Project proposes multi-family
residential development approximately 0.4
miles from the Atwater Target bus stop (Stop
ID 4305). As such, the Project increases
access to public transit by increasing density
of development near transit.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by
planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking.

Consistent. The Project proposes pedestrian
facilities (i.e., sidewalks) within the site and
connecting to adjacent properties. In
addition, as described above, the Project is
near an existing bus stop. As such, it increases
public access to clean mobility options.

Implement parking pricing or transportation demand
management pricing strategies.

Not Applicable. The Project proposes
residential development; thus, parking
spaces are provided at no cost for residents.

Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixeduse, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing the allowable density
of a neighborhood)
Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project.

Preserve natural and working lands by implementing
land use policies that guide development toward infill
areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Consistent. The Project is proposed on a site
surrounded by existing urban development.

Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for
residential and commercial uses.

Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement
energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energyintensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and
equipment controllers).

Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project. In
addition, the Project does not include
retrofits for existing buildings.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all
appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as
appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances
Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project. In
addition, the Project does not include
retrofits for existing buildings.

Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production
and distribution and energy storage on privately owned
land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information
sharing)
Not Applicable. This is a city-wide strategy
thus is not applicable to the Project.

Deploy renewable energy production and energy
storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on
Consistent. The Project will be subject to the
installation of solar photovoltaic systems on

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 64
rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal
buildings)
rooftops pursuant California’s 2019 Energy
Code.

Consistency with the MCAG RTP/SCS
The Merced CAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) includes a series of goals for the region that would reduce GHG emissions based on the land use consistency and the reduction of vehicle trips. Relevant goals and policies include:

Goal 12 Sustainable Communities: Reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions through compact growth and alternative transportation strategies. Protect and enhance the natural environment. Support vehicle electrification and the provision of electrification infrastructure in public and private parking facilities and structures.

Policy 12.1. Prioritize infill and growth in existing communities.

Most goals and policies are implemented at the regional or city level. Since the proposed Project is an infill development (i.e., within city limits and generally surrounded by urban development) in an urbanized area and will be subject to local regulations, the Project would be consistent with goals and policies identified in the RTP/SCS.

Consistency with the Atwater General Plan
The Project complies with the General Plan goals and policies as listed in the Environmental Settings since it is generally compliant with the SJVAPCD air quality attainment plans.

In conclusion, the Project contains features that would reduce GHG emissions in compliance with CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, MCAG RTP/SCS, and the General Plan. As such, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 65

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to "injurious substances," which include flammable liquids and gases, poisons, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, radioactive materials, and medical supplies and waste. These materials are either generated or used in various commercial and industrial activities. Hazardous

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 66
wastes are injurious substances that have been or will be disposed of. Potential hazards arise from the transport of hazardous materials, including leakage and accidents involving transporting vehicles. There also are hazards associated with the use and storage of these materials and waste. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories based on their properties:
• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that: “…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households.

Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. The release of hazardous materials would be subject to existing federal, state, and local regulations and is similar to the transport, use, and disposal of hazard materials.

Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was established in 1991 to protect the environment.

CalEPA oversees the Unified Program through Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), which consolidates six (6) environmental programs to ensure the handling of hazardous waste and materials in California. The local CUPA in Merced County, Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health (MCDEH), is responsible for administering the following six (6) CUPA programs:
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP)
• California Accidental Release Program (CalARP)
• Underground Storage Tank Program (UST)
• Aboveground Storage Tank Program (APSA)
• Hazardous Waste Generator Program
• Tiered Permitting Program

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 67
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is another agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, conducts inspections, provide emergency response for hazardous materials-related emergencies, protect water resources from contamination, removing wastes, etc. DTSC acts under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC implements the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Division 4.5 to manage hazardous waste. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that DTSC shall compile and update at least annually a list of:
(1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).
(2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposal on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program.

This list of hazardous waste sites in California, referred to as the Cortese List, is then distributed to each city and county. According to the CCR Title 22, soil excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is considered hazardous waste, and remediation actions should be performed accordingly. Cleanup requirements are determined case-by-case by the jurisdiction.

Record Search
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) 24, California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database 25 , and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database 26 include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on December 13, 2023. The searches revealed no sites are present on the Project site.

4.9.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a residential development. The type of hazardous materials that would be associated with Project operations are those typical of residential uses such as cleaning supplies and HVAC equipment. Because of the proposed residential use, it is not expected that the Project would routinely transport, 24 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund National Priorities List. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c41f1 25 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ 26 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 68
use, or dispose of hazardous materials other than those typical of residential uses and such materials would not be of the type of quantity that would pose a significant hazard to the public.

Some appliances and electronics used or stored by residents may contain hazardous components (e.g., refrigerants, oils, etc.); however, these hazardous components are regulated by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act and Clean Air Act and transport of such components are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety as implemented in California by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), California Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City. Through compliance with regulations, appliances and electronics associated with the Project are not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

While demolition and construction activities may include the temporary transport, storage, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, etc.), such activities would be regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control through the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations as well as by MBARD through Rule 424 (i.e., asbestos-containing materials).

Compliance would ensure that construction-related impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and a less than significant impact would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion a), it is not anticipated that the Project itself would involve any operations that would require routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and therefore is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials, including any reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. While potential impacts would occur through construction-related transport and disposal of hazardous materials, such impacts would be short-term and temporary, and would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations in addition to standard equipment operating practices as described under criterion a). Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. Atwater Valley Community School is approximately 190 feet north of the Project site.

As described under criteria a) and b) above, the Project is not anticipated to emit hazard emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or water that would pose a risk or threat to the school or surrounding area.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. According to NPL, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker, the Project site does not include a hazardous material release site. Since there are no active hazardous material release sites on the Project site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the environment and there would be a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 69
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the Castle Air Force Base located approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The airport was closed in 1995. Because there is not an airport within two (2) miles of the Project site, there would not be a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area and no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project would not involve any new or altered infrastructure associated with evacuation, emergency response, and emergency access routes within the City of Atwater or County of Merced. Construction may require lane closure; however, these activities would be short-term and access through Sunset Drive and/or Matthew Street would be maintained through standard traffic control. Following construction, this roadway would continue to provide access to the site. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access. Therefore, through the compliance, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded by urban uses. In addition, the site is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Future development of the site would result in the construction of structures and installation of infrastructure that would be reviewed and conditioned by the City for compliance with all applicable standards, specifications, and codes. In addition, any structure occupied by humans would be required to be constructed in adherence to the Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Standards of the CBC Chapter 7A. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the Project meets standards to help prevent loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 70

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

i. Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii. Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site:

X
iii. Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood
flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 71

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within city limits and would be connected to the city’s water and stormwater services. The city’s water and stormwater services are described as follows.

Water
The City provides water service for residences, commercial establishments, manufacturing plans, institutional facilities, and parks within the city limits. The City operates nine (9) wells to provide water to its customers. All wells are located within the City except for Well #21, which is located at the northeast corner of the Castle Airport facility adjacent to the U.S. Federal prison. 27 In 2016, the City produced an average of eight million gallons per day (mgd).

The system has a capacity to pump 15,388 gallons per minute (gpm) and two (2) million gallons of storage. As of 2016, the system serves approximately 6,800 residential connections, 520 commercial connections, six (6) industrial connections, and 45 irrigation connections. 28 The water is distributed through a grid system of pipelines ranging from four (4) to 14 inches in diameter. The system supplies the City with drinking water and provides water for fire protection through fire hydrants.

The City has an overall Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that allows for remote monitoring and control of the water system via radio control. This system enhances quick response times to problem situations and fathers real-time, accurate data. The system can accurately determine water production quantities. To protect groundwater resources and minimize the future need to import water from other sources, the City and MID are engaged in efforts to reduce water consumption. New Atwater connections are metered, and per State law, unmetered connections will be metered in the future. 29 The city’s water supply is obtained from the Merced Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin and is regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act by the Merced IrrigationUrban Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSA). The Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), adopted in December 2019, was developed to address the subbasin’s critical overdraft and bring it into balance by 2040. The Subbasin is heavily reliant on groundwater. Of note, the City and MID are working to reduce water consumption. The City has met Assembly Bill No. 2572 requirements for water meter installation in all residences built in/after 1992; such requirements seek to reduce consumption. Implementation of the Merced Groundwater Subbasin GSP will ensure that groundwater supply is sustainability managed.

In an effort to ensure future growth on the eastern side of the City , in 2016 the City negotiated a settlement with the private Meadowbrook Water Company to relocate their “service area” from the area east of Buhach Road, north of State Highway 99 located within the City Sphere of Influence, to an area north of Santa Fe Drive and south of Cardella Road further to the northeast (the Meadowbrook Water Company was sold to Cal American Water Company in late 2016).
27 City of Atwater. (2018). Drinking Water Quality Report. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf 28 City of Atwater; EMC Planning Group, Inc. (2017). 2014-2043 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/city-of-atwater-2014-2023-5th-cycle-housing-element/ 29 City of Atwater. (July 2018). Drinking Water Quality Report. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 72
Atwater General Plan established goals and policies related to groundwater use that would potentially influence implementation of the GSP, as listed below. The GSP anticipates that implementation of the GSP will reinforce Atwater’s General Plan goals in addition to the groundwater quality monitoring and remediation described therein.

GOAL CO-1. Support efforts to monitor and remediate existing groundwater contamination within the planning area.

Policy CO-1.1. Encourage responsible agencies to continue monitoring and remediation of contamination of the aquifer underneath the CAADC site.

Policy CO-1.2. Encourage the County of Merced to pursue remediation of groundwater contamination in the unincorporated portions of the Planning Area.

GOAL CO-2. Prevent the creation of new groundwater contamination or the spread of existing contamination.

Policy CO-2.1. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to protect, improve, and enhance groundwater quality in the region.

Policy CO-2.2. Educate the public on the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials and household hazardous waste.

According to the Atwater General Plan, most of the city of Atwater lies outside the 100-year floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Seismic and Public Safety Element addresses flood hazards and dam inundation areas through several goals and policies, as listed below.

GOAL SF-4. Avoid damage to persons and property resulting from flooding.

Policy SF-4.1. Restrict development within the 100-year floodplain in a manner that effectively prevents damage to persons and property.

GOAL SF-5. Reduce potential flood impacts resulting from dam failures.

Policy SF-5.1. Ensure that the City’s Emergency Plan is updated to include dam failure inundation as a potential emergency and procedures for the efficient and orderly notification and evacuation of potential dam inundation areas.

Policy SF-5.2. Request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide information relative to the potential dam inundation area associated with Castle Reservoir.

Stormwater
The City of Atwater, County of Merced, City of Merced, and MID together form a Storm Water Management Group with the purpose to develop a plan to share costs in order to assure the continuity of program elements between agencies and fulfill the requirements set forth by the RWQCB General Permit. The City’s storm drainage system generally consists of retention basins with a discharge to a natural drain or MID canal. There are 13 detention basins and 16 storm water lift stations in the city, with pumping capacities ranging from 75 gpm to 8,000 gpm. The City has an agreement with MID for storm water discharge that includes a fee for maintenance of the canal system. MID sets a maximum rate of discharge for each development. In some situations, where service is not available, the City requires private basins to be constructed on Project sites.

4.10.2 Impact Assessment

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 73
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Because the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the developer is required to prepare a SWPPP (Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for the Project to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, runoff resulting from the Project would be managed in compliance with the approved grading and drainage plans. Thus, compliance with existing regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and AMC in addition to approved plans would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 30 This plan is intended to serve as a tool for planning and phasing the construction of future domestic water supply infrastructure for the projected buildout of the City of Atwater, in accordance with the General Plan.

According to the UWMP, 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. The Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), adopted in 2019 and revised in 2022, has a goal to achieve sustainable groundwater management on a longterm average basis by increasing recharge and/or reducing groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results. 31 The implementation of the GSP is expected to improve the long-term water supply reliability for the City.

Along with the adoption of the UWMP and GSP, the City adopted its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which consists of four (4) stages to allow the City to reduce its water demand in addition to several restrictions and prohibitions on end users.

Projected water use for each sector is included in Table 4-7. Residential water uses account for approximately 57% of potable water used citywide.

Table 4-7 Projected Potable Water Demand by Sector, 2025 – 2040 Use Type Water Use by Volume (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Single-Family 4,582 4,907 5,254 5,626
30 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 31 Merced SGMA. (2022). Resources. Accessed January 4, 2024, https://mercedsgma.org/resources#documents

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 74
Multi-Family 951 1,018 1,090 1,167
Commercial 2,449 2,622 2,808 3,007
Other 1,660 1,777 1,903 2,038
Total 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838
Source: City of Atwater, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2022 According the UWMP, the Project site is located within the City’s current service area. The Project has been reviewed by the City and is required to connect to the available water facilities and install water meter box(es) for service. A Water Connection Fee, including Service Connection Fee, Water Capacity Fees, and Water Meter Fee, would be charged for the installation of new water services and meters to serve the property would be assessed based on the number of residential units proposed. Water services would be read and billed monthly on a volumeof use basis.

Potable water demands for the Project were estimated using UWMP’s target/unconstrained per capita water use, which is 254 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). It should be noted that the actual water use recorded in 2020 was less than this target at 241 gpcd. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of VLDR – Very Low Density Residential and proposes a GPA to the HDR – High Density Residential land use designation. Table 4-8 summarizes the total water demands to be expected. As shown, the existing land use would utilize approximately

2.6 acre-feet per year (AFY) compared to an estimated 22.0 AFY under the proposed use. Development of the Project site would account for a less than 1% increase above the City’s 2020 water demand of 8,559 acre-feet (AF).32 In addition, the minimal increase in demand would not exceed available groundwater supplies during a normal year water supply estimate of 24,195 AFY (according to pumping capacity). Therefore, the Project would be accommodated by existing groundwater supplies and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4-8 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use
Land Use # of Units Water Demand
Factor
Household
Size *
Water Demand
(Gallon per Day) **
Water Demand
(Acre-Feet per
Year)
VLDR – Very Low Density
Residential 3 (maximum) 254 gpcd 3.09 2,354.58 2.6
HDR – High Density
Residential 25 (proposed) 254 gpcd 3.09 19,621.50 22.0
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. QuickFacts: Atwater city, California. Accessed on January 2, 2024, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/atwatercitycalifornia/PST120222 ** Water Demand = # of Units * Household Size * Water Demand Factor.

Furthermore, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water conservation efforts (e.g., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact water supply or impede water management. In particular, the Project would be built accordance with all mandatory outdoor water use requirements as outlined in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Section 4.304 – Outdoor Water Use and verified through the building 32 City of Fresno (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed February 24, 2023, https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/06/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Public-Draft_2021-06-

29.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 75
permit process. As a multi-family residential development that would contain landscaping, the Project shall comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Division 2), as implemented and enforced through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, development of the Project site would increase impervious surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff and reduce groundwater recharge. However, the Project proposes the construction of two (2) bioretention areas to collect and retain groundwater recharge. Therefore, potential for the Project to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the proposed Project would not generate significantly greater water demand than would otherwise occur with a higher intensity land use. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system and supplies should be adequate to serve the Project, and the Project would thereby not decrease groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. 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) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project site can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppressing aquatic vegetation growth.

Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity.

Bare soils, common within agricultural land, are more susceptible to erosion than an already developed urban land, thus it is not expected that erosion could occur on-site. Development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance during construction is largely caused by the use of water. Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with applicable standards. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with the Project’s SWPPP, construction-related erosion controls and BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential impacts related to erosion and siltation. These BMPs would include, but are not limited to, covering and/or binding soil surfaces to prevent soil from being detached and transported by water or wind, and the use of barriers such as straw bales and sandbags to control sediment.

Together, the controls and BMPs are intended to limit soil transportation and erosion. As such, the likelihood of

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 76
erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and approved grading and drainage plans as described under criterion a). With these provisions in place, the impact on soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the site would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, which could increase the volume of runoff. Impervious area pre- and post-construction are estimated to be 49,425 sf. and 17,260 sf., respectively. The Project proposes two (2) bioretention areas to manage surfer runoff to prevent flooding. As previously discussed, development of the site would require compliance with the SWPPP, approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of BMPs that would control and direct runoff.

Compliance would ensure that construction impacts related to the alteration of the site’s natural hydrology and the potential increase in runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant. iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Development of the site would disturb the site’s vegetation and soil and temporarily alter the natural hydrology of the site. However, compliance with the SWPPP, approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of BMPs that would control, and direct runoff would reduce construction impacts related to alteration of the site’s natural hydrology and the potential increase in runoff or polluted runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, construction would not result in the creation or contribution of additional sources of runoff or polluted runoff in exceedance of the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant.

Regarding operational impacts, development of the site would result in an increase in the impervious surface area which would increase runoff from the site. However, compliance with the approved grading and drainage plans would reduce the potential for the Project to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. A less than significant impact would occur. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the construction of the proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces, the Project would be required to maintain the site’s drainage pattern through Project-specific grading and drainage plans that would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Through compliance, the potential for the Project to impede or redirect flood flows would be minimized or eliminated and a less than significant impact would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06047C0405G, dated December 2, 2008. 33 Zone X is a flood hazard area with a 0.2 percent annual 33 FEMA. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Accessed December 13, 2023, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=255%20E%20Bellevue%20Rd%20Atwater%2C%20CA%2095301#searchr esultsanchor

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 77
chance of flood hazard and one (1) precent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one (1) square mile. In addition, the City, inclusive of the Project site, has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking and has a relatively low probability of shaking. Seiches are unlikely to form due to the low seismic energy produced in the area. Therefore, as a low-risk area, the Project would have a less than significant impact as it relates to the risk release of pollutants due to project inundations. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA and is therefore subject to the Merced Groundwater Subbasin GSP adopted in 2019 and revised in 2022. As described under criterion (b) above, the Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. In addition, the GSP anticipates that implementation of the GSP will reinforce Atwater’s General Plan goals in addition to the groundwater quality monitoring and remediation described therein. Therefore, based on compliance with such plans, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 78

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the Atwater General Plan land use designation from VLDR – Very Low Density Residential to HDR – High Density Residential. A Zone Change is also proposed to change the zoning of the site from R-E – Residential Estate to R-3-1.5 – High Density Residential. A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) is proposed to split the 1.13-acre site into three (3) parcels, and a Site Plan Review (SPR) would facilitate the development of a 2-story apartment structure on each parcel, totaling 25 dwelling units.

4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a Project introduced new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses or created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community. Typical examples of physical barriers include the introduction of new, intersecting roadways, roadway closures, and construction of new major utility infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, storm channels, etc.).

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is generally surrounded by institutional use, residential use and vacant land. Properties to the east, and west are planned and zoned for residential uses, and properties to the south are zoned for agricultural use within the County and planned as Urban Reserve. The Project site is currently vacant with improvements along street frontages and proposes to be developed with multi-family residential use. Proposed site improvements are regulated by development standards and zoning regulations, including height, landscaping, setbacks, improvements, right-of-way dedications, open space, and parking, etc. Review of SPR 23-19-0500 ensures that the Project is consistent and therefore compatible with the existing residential use surrounding the Project site.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area.

Circulation System
Access to the site would be provided via one (1) point of ingress/egress on Matthew Street and one (1) point of ingress/egress on Everett Street. Existing 5-feet 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 | 79
site, connecting to existing sidewalks to the adjacent property to the west. Internal circulation of the site would include a 25-feet drive aisle for automobiles and 5-feet wide concrete sidewalks for pedestrians. As such, the Project would be served by the existing circulation system and related infrastructure. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not include the introduction of new, intersecting roadways.

Utility Infrastructure
The Project site would be required to connect to the City’s water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and solid waste services are provided by private companies. Utility systems are described and analyzed in Section 4.10 and Section 4.15. Based on the analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new, major utility infrastructure.

As such, the Project does not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as it would develop a vacant and undeveloped site with residential uses that are consistent and compatible with existing uses surrounding the Project site. In addition, the Project does not propose new roadways and does not include major utility infrastructure. For these reasons, the Project would not result in the physical division of an established community and would thereby have a less than significant impact.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct a 25-unit multi-family development with the approval of the associated General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Plan Review. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would increase the residential density that is permitted on the Project site.

Generally, policy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to provide increased density for residential development. A discussion of land use policies that are applicable to the Project are included in Table 4-9. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the proposed General Plan residential land use designation.

Table 4-9 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan for Residential Development General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU-1.4 Limit Residential Development Along Highways. The City shall limit residential development from fronting State Highway 145 and State Highway 180 to ensure public safety. Residential development along these facilities shall be designed and buffered to reduce noise and air pollutant impacts to the maximum extent reasonably feasible and consistent with CEQA review.

Consistent. The Project site does not front
and is not within the vicinity of any State
Highways.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 80

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of CEQA, mineral resources are land areas or deposits deemed significant by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). Mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and metallic and nonmetallic deposits, including aggregate resources. The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the Project site is in the “MRZ-4” zone, which are “areas where available geologic information is inadequate to assign to any other mineral resource zone category”. 34 In addition, the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site, is not within a CalGEM-recognized oilfield and there are no oil and gas wells on-site. 35

4.12.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 34 California Department of Conservation. (2021). Mineral Lands Classification. Accessed on January 2, 2024, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc 35 California Department of Conservation. Well Finder. Accessed on January 2, 2024, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 81
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 82

4.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
X

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
In general, there are two (2) types of noise sources: 1) mobile source and 2) stationary sounds. Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft. Stationary sounds are sources that do not move such as machinery or construction sites. Two (2) noise generating activities of the Project would include construction (short-term, temporary) and operational (long-term) noise.

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels. The nearest sensitive land uses are single-family residential subdivisions adjacent to the Project site on the east and west, in addition to the mobile home parks to the south of the site.

The Atwater General Plan Noise Element and Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 8 – Health and Safety outlines policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. Specific to residential uses in the city of Atwater, 55-60 dB is an acceptable level of community noise exposure. Anything above 75 dB is considered to be generally unacceptable. 36 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
36 General Plan, Figure 13.1 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Development, 1990

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 83
The Project site’s existing noise environment is impacted by various noise sources. As previously discussed, the Project site is bounded by single-family residences to the east and south, and a community school to the north.

Associated noise from residential uses includes vehicles and typical neighborhood noise (i.e. talking, car doors shutting, dogs barking, etc.), which are usually minimized by trees and landscaping. The Project site is also bounded by vacant land to the west. The Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Castle Airport, nor is it within the Airport’s CNEL noise contour. Othersources of noise include the vehicular traffic on Sunset Drive, a local road.

4.13.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less than Significant Impact. Noise generating activities of the Project would include traffic noise and stationerysource noise, such as operations and construction as described below. It is not anticipated that Project would generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards, given the type of development proposed (i.e., residential).

Traffic Noise Exposure
Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft.

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space-recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels. The nearest sensitive land uses are single-family residences to the east and south of the Project site and the community school to the north of the Project site.

According to the General Plan Noise Element, the Project site is not within the 60 dB Ldn contour under existing conditions. However, the Project site is projected to be within the 60 dB Ldn contour for projected future conditions on major roadways within the City. The primary source of on-going noise from the future residential project will be from vehicles traveling to and from the site. The Project will generate an increase in traffic on some roadways in the Project vicinity. However, the relatively low number of new trips (i.e., 168.5 ADTs) associated with the Project is not likely to increase the ambient noise levels by a significant amount as the area is active with vehicles. As such, it is expected that the traffic noise levels will increase minimally and will not cause a significant impact.

Operational Noise Exposure
The proposed residential use is expected to generate typical neighborhood noise (i.e. talking, car doors shutting, dogs barking, etc.). These noises are expected to be minimal due to the relatively low number of units proposed (i.e., 25 units), and will not introduce a new significant source of noise that isn’t already occurring in the area. In addition, household machinery sounds (e.g., HVAC systems, refrigerators, etc.) will be confined within the interior of the buildings. As such, it is expected that the operational noise generated by the Project will be minimal and most likely not cause significant impact to existing uses.

Construction Noise Exposure

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF ATWATER – 7212 Sunset Drive Apartments | 84
Construction Noise Exposure
Construction noise will result from construction activities through the use of construction equipment for grading the site and building the proposed structures. Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Of all construction phases, it is anticipated that grading would produce the loudest noise.

Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.0. For the purpose of this noise assessment, general construction equipment, including air compressors, mixers, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, graders, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, dozers, tractors, and welders, are included in the construction noise modeling. According to existing and anticipated land use within and around the Project site, the baseline and receptors that are analyzed in the RCNM are shown in Table 4-9.

Table 4-10 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM
Location Land Use Total dB Leq *
165 feet to the north School 76.7
100 feet to the east Residential 81.0
* This number estimates noise when all equipment is used at the same time.

Short-term construction noises include traffic noise generated from transporting construction equipment and materials and construction worker commuting. These activities would raise noise levels near the site. According to modeling of the FHWA RCNM Version 1.0, construction noise generated from the offroad equipment is estimated to be 76.7 and 81.0 dB Leq if all equipment was used at the same time. Ambient noise from construction activities would cease upon completion of construction. Since the City of Atwater does not have a threshold for construction noise, the construction noise assessment is done for informational purposes.

Although the nearby residential uses would experience elevated noise levels from construction, these activities would be temporary and would generally take place in accordance with AMC Section 8.44.050 which regulates permissible hours of construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, Saturdays and Sundays.

Overall, Project construction is not expected to result in a significant impact because the noise would be regulated by the AMC. Noise would thereby be generated during daylight hours and not during evening or more noisesensitive time periods; and the increase in noise would cease upon completion of the Project. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Although the Project would result in increased ambient noise level at the Project site, compliance with the General Plan policies and AMC requirements would result in the Project’s compliance with applicable standards. Overall, the Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to noise. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Ground borne vibration may result from operations and/or construction, depending on the use of equipment (e.g., pile drivers, bulldozers, jackhammers, etc.), distance to affected structures, and soil type. Depending on the method, equipment-generated vibrations could spread through the ground and affect nearby buildings. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of development. Further, construction or operation of the Project would not involve equipment that would generate substantial groundborne vibration of ground borne noise levels. As

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 26, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Thompson, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director

PREPARED
BY:

Michael Hayes
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road
Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City
Manager/Community Development Director Thompson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Open the public hearing and receive any testimony given; and Close the public hearing; and
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 3483-24 adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15073 and selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the preferred alignment for development of the Project; and Motion to adopt Resolution 3484-24 approving Budget Amendment No. 3 amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget regarding the Bellevue Reconstruction/Realignment Project; or
Motion to accept staff's recommendation as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

I. BACKGROUND:

The Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project is a multi-jurisdictional priority project of the City of Atwater and County of Merced. This project would realign and reconstruct a portion of Bellevue Road between Grove Avenue and Parade Street immediately west of the City of Atwater City limits. Bellevue Road is currently closed to traffic within the developed portion of the Dole Packaged Foods campus under a Merced

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

Agenda Report - Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson) Page 2

County Conditional Use Permit, requiring extensive detours on local roadways for motorists.

On January 10, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution No. 3276-22 approving budget amendment No. 18 and amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget to establish a budget within the Measure V regional Fund for the preparation of the Project Study ReportProject Development Support (PSR-PDS) for the Project. The final PSR-PDS was adopted by City Council on October 09, 2023 by Resolution No. 3436-23.

Following adoption of the PSR-PDS, the City engaged De Novo Planning Group to complete CEQA analysis for the project. After completion of the Initial Study (IS), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and published for review.

The PSR-PDS analyzed two primary proposed alternatives for realignment with the first alternative shifting the alignment of Bellevue to the south, beginning at Parade Street and then rejoining the existing road segment at Olive Avenue, and the second alternative widening the existing private portion of the road to a 4-lane arterial. Through discussions with Dole International, review of preliminary General Plan Update land use diagrams, and evaluation of utility relocation costs, a third alternative emerged that would realign Bellevue Road between the Olive Avenue and the Atwater Canal to just south of the existing roadway and overhead utilities. All three alignment alternatives were evaluated in the Initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration. Staff recommends adoption of this Alignment Alternative 3.

Agenda Report - Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson) Page 3

Agenda Report - Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson) Page 4

Agenda Report - Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson) Page 5

II. ANALYSIS:

The City in partnership with the County of Merced initiated this project to evaluate improvements to an arterial roadway that will help relieve congestion and improve traffic flow through the City along Bellevue Road. The City proposes to design and construct the realignment and reconstruction of approximately 1.6 miles of Bellevue Road, mostly outside the current City Limits within unincorporated Merced County. The proposed Bellevue Road Alignment Alternative 3 would begin between Olive Avenue and Grove Avenue, east of State Route 99, realign Bellevue Road just south of the existing Bellevue Road, then conform near Parade Street. New intersection connections would be required at Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. The project would also include Class IV bike lanes and sidewalks. All improvements will be designed to the City of Atwater Standards.

The project would improve connectivity between State Route 99 and the Castle Commerce Center located near the east side of Atwater. The road realignment will provide a more direct route and reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Agenda Report - Resolution Adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Selecting Alignment Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alignment for the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson) Page 6

This Project is currently included in the Regional Transportation Plan, adopted by Resolution 3250-21 and prioritized as a Tier 1 Project by the City Council. The proposed alignment would provide the following benefits to the City of Atwater:
• Improve accessibility and mobility of goods and persons in Atwater; • Provide a more direct route from the SR 99/Westside Boulevard interchange to the Castle Commerce Center;
• Reduce VMT;
• Reduce travel time;
• Provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Accommodate local development; and
• Provide consistency with existing and planned local and regional development.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

The recommended actions do not commit any funds to the Project nor commit the City to any expenditures. Measure V Regional Project Funding Agreement No. 20240327SG is in place for $2,150,000 for the Project Design (PS&E) Phase, contingent on Council adoption of the IS/MND. Upon approval of Budget Amendment No. X, regarding Measure V Regional Projects Funds, sufficient funding would be available in the FY 2024-25 Budget, Account No. 0010.1080.V017. $2,037,362 will be reappropriated from FY 2023-24 to FY 2024-25.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

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

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This project is consistent with General Plan Goal CIRC-4 “Creation of new entrances into Atwater north of the Applegate interchange,” and General Plan Policy CIRC-1.4 “Develop the City’s roadway system in conformance with the planned roadway system shown on the Circulation Plan (Figure 3-7) and the City’s adopted cross section standards.”
ALTERNATIVES:

Three roadway alignment alternatives were studied in the IS/MND.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION: