LOS Banos
www.losbanos.org
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
520 J Street
Los Banos, California
JANUARY 5, 2022 - 6:00 PM
The City Hall Council Chambers remain closed to the public.
In accordance with Assembly Bill 361, all members of the City Council and City staff will join the meeting via phone/video conference and no teleconference locations are required.
The following alternatives are available to members of the public who wish to watch the meeting and/or provide comments to the City Council before and during the meeting:
AudioNideo Broadcast: This City Council Meeting can be accessed in real time from your computer, tablet, or smartphone at the (ollowing links:
• Watch on Cable-Com cast Channel 96
• Watch on YouTube: https:llwww. youtube.com/channeIlUC3sy5 slYr344mZsrgl5Tg • Join & Participate in Zoom Meeting:
https:llus06web.zoom. us/j/86890995636?pwd=eDI4cEw5WXFEOXpwUXIH RHg 1 VH VUdz09
Meeting 10: 86890995636
Passcode:527396
One tap mobile
+14086380968"86890995636#,,,,*527396# US (San Jose)
+16699006833"86890995636#,,,,*527396# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 4086380968 US (San Jose)
+1 6699006833 US (San Jose)
+1 2532158782 US (Tacoma)
+1 3462487799 US (Houston)
+1 301 7158592 US (Washington DC)
+1 3126266799 US (Chicago)
+1 6468769923 US (New York)
Find your local number: https:llus06web.zoom.us/u/kbuf3nFcOP Los Banos City Council Agenda - December 15,2021 Page 1 0(6 1 HOW TO COMMENT DURING A PUBLIC MEETING
Public comments will be taken at the time of each eligible Agenda item.
If you would like to submit written comments: Please submit written comments by email to [email protected] or drop them off at City Hall, 520 J Street.
If you are a Zoom video Conference participant: To comment by Zoom video conference, click the "Raise Your Hand" button to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on an eligible agenda item. You will then be unmuted during your turn and allowed to make public comments. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.
• Instructions on how to join a Zoom meeting and "Raise Your Hand" are available at:
https:/Isupport.zoom. us/hc/en-us/articles/115002262083-Join i ng-a-Zoom-testmeeting If you are a phone participant: To comment by phone, please call on one of the above listed phone numbers. You will be prompted to "Raise Your Hand" by pressing "*9" to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on an eligible agenda item. You will then be unmuted during your turn and allowed to make public comments. Then, press "*6" to unmute yourself in order to speak. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.
• Instructions on how to join a Zoom meeting by phone are available at:
https:!/support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/20 1362663-J oin i ng-a-Zoom-meeti ng-byphone
IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER DURING YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
1. All attendees shall be muted upon entry to the meeting.
2. Please do not raise your hand if the item currently being heard is not the item you wish to speak on. We will call for public testimony on each item individually. When the item you are interested in is called and public speakers are invited to raise their hands, raise yours then and we will call them all in the order they are raised.
3. You may of course speak on multiple items but your comments during each item must address the item currently under discussion. Speakers attempting to speak about items other than the item currently under consideration will be muted and asked to wait for the item they're here to speak about to be called. if you have any questions prior to the meeting, please email City Clerk Lucy Mallo.n~e at [email protected] or call (?9~) 8?J -~412 ~ Los Banos City Council Agenda - January 5, 2022 Page 20f6 2 '·····················if·;;~··~~~i;~··~~~~i~·i··~~;i~t~~~~·t;·~ff~~·d··~;·~~rti;i~·~t~··i~··thi;·;;;~~ti~~: .. ~/~~;~·· ~~Ii th·~·· ········ .. ···· .. ··1 City Clerk's Office @ (209) 827-7000 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
The City of Los Banos complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * *
Si requiere asistencia especial para atender a participar en esta junta par favor lIame a la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad al (209) 827-7000 a 10 menos de 48 horas previas de la junta.
La Cuidad de Los Banos cumple can la Acta de Americanos can Deshabilidad (ADA) de 1990 . ........................................................................................................................................... , ............................................................................................................................................... :
~ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ···········i Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the meeting and in the City Clerk's office located at City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City's website at www.losbanos.org.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cua/quier escritura 0 los documentos proporcionaron a una mayoria del Ayuntamiento respecto a cualquier articulo en este orden del dia sera hecho disponible para la inspecci6n publica en la reuni6n y en la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad en City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos,
California durante homs de oficina normales. Ademas, tales escrituras y los documentos pueden ser anunciados en el website de la ciudad en www.losbanos.org.
1. CALL TO ORDER - January 5, 2022 6:00 PM
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
3. ROLL CALL: (City Council Members)
Jones __ , Lambert __ , Lewis __ , LLamas __ , Faria __
4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
5. PRESENTATIONS.
A. Proclamation - Recognizing the Retirement of City of Los Banos Fire Captain Edward Vierra.
B. Proclamation - Recognizing the Retirement of City of Los Banos Fire Eningeer Mark Frontella.
C. Proclamation - Recoginizing Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
6. PUBLIC FORUM. (Members of the public may address the City Council Members on any item of public interest that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council; includes agenda and non-agenda items. No action will be taken on non-agenda items. Speakers are limited to a five (5) minute presentation. Detailed guidelines on how to participate and make comments are listed on pages 1 and 2 of this agenda. Comments received prior to the meeting will be read into the record at the appropriate time during the City Council Meeting.)
7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. (Items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the Consent Agenda by a City Council Member.) Los Banos City Council Agenda - January 5, 2022 Page 30'6 3 A. Check Register for #230188 - #230510 in the Amount of $1,151,118.08.
Recommendation: Approve the check register as submitted.
B. City Council Resolution No. 6442 - Adopting a Revised Budget for the 2021- 2022 Fiscal Year as it Pertains to Increasing Expenditures in the Police Department Code Enforcement, General Materials and Supplies Account in the Amount of $20,000.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.
C. City Council Resolution No. 6443 - Reauthorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Los Banos Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361 .
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.
8. PUBLIC HEARING. (If you challenge the proposed action as described herein in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.)
A. Public Hearing - To Receive Public Comment and Consideraton of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the AMG & Associates, LLC Industrial Annexation and Pre-Zone 2013-01, and Associated Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for a Proposed Project Located on the Southeast Corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Adjacent to the Northwestern Boundary of the City of Los Banos in Merced County, APN 081-110-007. 1) City Council Resolution No. 6444 - Approving Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) Associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for AMG & Associates, LLC.
2) Ordinance No. 1193 - Approving a Pre Annexation Development Agreement between the City of Los Banos and AMC & Associates, LLC for the Annexation of Approximately 28.5 Acres Generally Located at the Southeast Corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road More Specifically Identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 081-110-007 [AMG Industrial Business Park Annexation].
(First Reading & Introduction)
Recommendation: Receive staff report, open the public hearing, receive public comment, close the public hearing, adopt the resolution as submitted, waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance as submitted.
9. ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION ORDINANCE.
A. Ordinance No. 1194 - Adding Chapter 3.2 (Organic Waste Disposal Reduction) to Title 6 (Sanitation and Health) of the Los Banos Municipal Code.
(First Reading & Introduction)
Recommendation: Receive staff report, waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance as submitted.
Los Banos City Council Agenda - January 5, 2022 Page 40f6 4 10. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEEDS FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY (DLA), AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA) TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS.
A. City Council Resolution No. 6445 - Accepting the Grant Deed from the Los Banos DLA, as Successor Agency to the Former Los Banos RDA to the City of Los Banos, .68 Acre Parcel Located between Mercey Springs Road and the Future 10th Street Extension; Currently Zoned Rail Corridor (RC), APN 026-141-002, Partially Developed with a Public Walking Trail.
B. City Council Resolution No. 6446 - Accepting the Grant Deed from the Los Banos DLA, as Successor Agency to the Former Los Banos RDA to the City of Los Banos, 1.3 Acre Parcel Located between Mercey Springs Road and the Future 10th Street Extension; Currently Zoned Rail Corridor (RC), APN 026-171-011; Partially Developed with a Public Walking Trail, and a 2.0 Acre Parcel, Located between Mercey Springs Road and the Future 10th Street Extension; Currently Zoned Rail Corridor (RC), APN 026-161-001.
Recommendation: Receive the staff report and adopt the resolutions as submitted.
11. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY (DLA), AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA) TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS.
A. City Council Resolution No. 6447 - Accepting the Grant Deed from the Los Banos DLA, as Successor Agency to the Former Los Banos RDA to the City of Los Banos, 5.63 Acre Parcel Located between 7th Street and the Future 10th Street Extension; Currently Zoned Rail Corridor (RC), APN 025-114-010, Developed with a Public Walking Trail.
Recommendation: Receive the staff report and adopt the resolution as submitted.
12. ADVISEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICES. (No Report)
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.
13. CITY MANAGER REPORT.
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.
14. REPORT/UPDATE ON MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (MCAG), PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY (PCE), AND MEASURE V COMMITTEE.
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.
15. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS.
A. Brett Jones
B. Kenneth Lambert
C. Deborah Lewis
D. Refugio Llamas
E. Mayor Tom Faria
Los Banos City Council Agenda - January 5, 2022 Page 50'6 5 16. CLOSED SESSION.
A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: City Manager, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
17. ADJOURNMENT.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Dated this 30th day of December 2021
Los Banos City Council Agenda - January 5, 2022 Page 60f6 6 LOS Banos
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF
CITY OF LOS BANOS
FIRE CAPTAIN EDWARD VIERRA
WHEREAS, Edward Vierra became a member of the Los Banos Volunteer Fire Department on August 20, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Edward Vierra was hired as a full-time Firefighter by the City of Los Banos on December 20, 2001 and was promoted through the ranks of Fire Engineer on July 1, 20Q1 and Fire Captain on October 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Edward Vierra has contributed tremendously throughout his career to the community of Los Banos through his knowledge and commitment to his job; and WHEREAS, Edward Vierra will retire from the City of Los Banos as Fire Captain on December 31, 2021 with 20 years of service as afull-time City employee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members oj the City of Los Banos do hereby commend Edward Vierra on his dedication and loyalty to the City of Los Banos and congratulate him on his retirement.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that this proclamation was presented to Edward Vierra at the City Council Meeting held on January 5, 2022.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los
Banos, this 5th day of January 2022.
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
7 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 LOS Banos
At lhe Crossroads of Cali[ortlia
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF
CITY OF LOS BANOS
FIRE ENGINEER MARK FRONTELLA
WHEREAS, Mark FronteUa became a member of the Los Banos Volunteer Fire Department on May 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, Mark Frontella was hired as a full-time Firefighter by the City of Los Banos on January 16, 2003 and was promoted to the rank of Fire Engineer on July 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Mark Frontella has contributed tremendously throughout his career to the community of Los Banos through his knowledge and commitment to his job; and WHEREAS, Mark Frontella will retire from the City of Los Banos as Fire Engineer on December 31, 2021 with nearly 19 years of service as afull-time City employee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby commend Mark FronteUa on his dedication and loyalty to the City of Los Banos and congratulate him on his retirement.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that this proclamation was presented to Mark Frontella at the City Council Meeting held on January 5, 2022.
In witness whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand
and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los
Banos, this 5th day of January 2022.
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
9 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10 LOS Banos
PROCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING
REVERAND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY
WHEREAS, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929 and made a lasting impression as a key leader in the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1950's and 1960's; and
WHEREAS,. during speeches and rallies in our Nation's capital and throughout America, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. promoted his dream of a Nation where everyone is treated as equals and is judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"; and
WHEREAS, people throughout the world continue to look to Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s example as a model on human relations,. and his efforts in the daily struggle for civil human rights have continued since his assassination in 1968 and will continue until his dream of absolute freedom, equality, and justice for all is finally realized; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Banos is proud to honor and celebrate the life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize Monday, January 17, 2022 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Los Banos and encourage all citizens to celebrate and remember the many accomplishments of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of
Los Banos, this 5th day of January 2022.
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
11 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12 CK # 230188- # 230510
Bank Reconciliation
Checks by Date
User: jcanchola
Printed: 12/29/2021 - 9:53AM
Cleared and Not Cleared Checks
Print Void Checks
Check Check Date Name
230188 12/10/2021 Animal Damage Management, Inc.
230189 12110/2021 Apex Annex Health Center, Inc.
230190 12/10/2021 Aramark Uniform Ser Inc
230191 12110/2021 AramarkUniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. 230192 12110/2021 AT&T
230193 12110/2021 AT&T
230194 12/10/2021 Battery Systems, Inc.
230195 12/10/2021 Richard A Blak Phd
230196 12/10/2021 Blueglobes LLC
230197 12/10/2021 Brinks Inc.
230198 12110/2021 Bruce's Tire Inc
230199 12110/2021 BSK Associates
230200 12/10/2021 Buxton Company
230201 12110/2021 Capital One
230202 12/10/2021 Clark Pest Control Inc
230203 12/10/2021 Coffee Break Service Inc.
230204 12/10/2021 CPS
230205 12/10/2021 CSG Consultants Inc.
230206 1211 0/2021 Lamar A. Cummings
230207 12/10/2021 Laura Cruz
230208 12110/2021 Delta Wireless, Inc.
230209 1211 0/2021 Dept of Transportation
230210 12/10/2021 Farmer Brothers Coffee
230211 12/10/2021 Fastenal Company
230212 12110/2021 Fast Track Car Wash
230213 12/10/2021 GCS Environmental Equipment Services
230214 12/10/2021 Galls Inc
230215 12110/2021 Henley Pacific, LLC
230216 12/10/2021 InfoSend Inc.
230217 12/10/2021 JC's Pure Water & More
230218 12110/2021 JB Anderson Land Use Planning
230219 12110/2021 Kalmikov Enterprises, Inc
230220 12/10/2021 Kings View Corporation
230221 12/10/2021 KoneInc.
230222 12/10/2021 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 230223 12/10/2021 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
230224 12/10/2021 Lucas Business Systems
230225 12/10/2021 Marfab Inc
230226 12/10/2021 Merced College
01/05/2022 $1,151,118.08
T Cityof B .LOS anos
Module Void Amount
AP 4,325.00
AP 1,066.00
AP 485.21
AP 267.56
AP 70.34
AP 106.29
AP 536.98
AP 900.00
AP 457.80
AP 883.45
AP 3,368.12
AP 2,460.00
AP 12,500.00
AP 1,372.17
AP 95.00
AP 145.92
AP 522.75
AP 94,504.99
AP 347.50
AP 600.00
AP 435.00
AP 54.39
AP 205.46
AP 697.08
AP 591.50
AP 721.89
AP 135.06
AP 301.43
AP 6,588.54
AP 70.00
AP 1,043.00
AP 253.73
AP 400.00
AP 1,950.16
AP 414.00
AP 27,560.00
AP 924.01
AP 258.29
AP 253.00
230227 1211 0/2021 Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority AP 6,664.72 230228 1211 0/2021 Merced Truck & Trailer Inc AP 376.94 230229 12110/2021 Madera Uniform & Accessories AP 488.08 230230 12110/2021 Monterey Auto Services Inc. AP 40.75
230231 12110/2021 NDN International LLC AP 1,340.84
230232 12/10/2021 The Office City AP 361.85
230233 1211 0/2021 OSE AP 109.64
13 230234 12/10/2021 O'Reilly Auto Parts AP 731.99
230235 12/10/2021 PG&E Company AP 111,951.81
230236 12/ 10/2021 PG&E Company AP 40
.69
230237 12/ 10/2021 PG&E Company AP 27.48
230238 12110/2021 Pace Supply Corp. AP
1,412.70
230239 12110/2021 Pacheco Veterinary AP 1,250
.00
230240 12/10/2021 Pinnacle Healthcare Medical Group AP 270 .00
230241 12110/2021 Pitney Bowes Inc AP 473.25
230242 12110/2021 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. AP 6,491.22 230243 12110/2021 Purchase Power Inc AP 3,030
.00
230244 12110/2021 Protech Security & Electronics, Inc. AP 432.00 230245 12110/2021 SNAP CD AP 1,683
.00
230246 12110/2021 Save Mart Supermarkets AP 194
.63
230247 12110/2021 Save Mart Supermarkets AP 12
.28
230248 12/ 10/2021 Sherwin Williams Co AP 166
.99
230249 12/10/2021 Shred-It US N LLC AP 309.85
230250 12/10/2021 Robert & Susan Hansen AP 206.62
230251 1211 0/2021 SIJ Holdings, Inc AP 509.70
230252 12/10/2021 Sorensens True Value AP 1,487.09
230253 12/10/2021 Sprint Solutions, Inc. AP 189.95
230254 12/10/2021 Superior Pool Products, LLC AP 11
.,701.58
230255 12110/2021 Tap Master, Inc. AP 15,466
.00
230256 12/10/2021 Tractor Supply Credit Plan AP 184
.86
230257 12/10/2021 Triangle Rock Products AP 162
.20
230258 12/10/2021 Anna Tellez AP 600.00
230259 12110/2021 USA Blue Book AP 5,341.12
230260 12110/2021 Steven Bennin AP 31.77
230261 12110/2021 Ana Fischer AP 93.63
230262 12/10/2021 Jesus & Maria Fregoso AP 232.67
230263 12/10/2021 Luz Preciado AP 73
.18
230264 12/10/2021 Alejandra Abadilla Medina AP 51.00
230265 12110/2021 RBG Construction AP 179
.31
230266 12110/2021 Silvia Barrera Bejar AP 22.49
230267 12/10/2021 Marilen Garcia-vega AP 22.49
230268 12110/2021 Ethan Conrad Properties AP 27.05
230269 12110/2021 D.R. Horton AP 190
.80
230270 12110/2021 Alfredo Munoz AP 149
.30
230271 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 178.54
230272 12/10/2021 Baljinder Singh AP 98
.57
230273 12/10/2021
D.R. Horton AP 156
.54
230274 12110/2021 D.R. Horton AP 164
.75
230275 12110/2021 D.R. Horton AP 190
.80
230276 1211
0/2021 D.R. Horton AP 164.75
230277 12/10/2021 Pastor Martin & Mimosa Sison AP
4.91 230278 1211 0/2021 RBG Construction AP 179
.31
230279 12110/2021 Marina Espinoza AP 14.42
230280 12/10/2021 Justina Lindgren AP 63
.71
230281 12/10/2021 John Schlickeiser AP 155.61
230282 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 189
.27
230283 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 189
.27
230284 12/10/2021
D.R. Horton AP 189.27
230285 12110/2021 RBG Construction AP 189
.27
230286 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 186
.21
230287 12/10/2021 Irvin Velasquez-Jovel AP 43.41
230288 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 185.44
230289 12110/2021 D.R. Horton AP 185.44
230290 12110/2021 D.R. Horton AP 185.44
230291 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 181.61
14 230292 12/10/2021 D.R. Horton AP 181.61
230293 12/10/2021 Jaqueline Gutierrez AP
. 23.93
230294 12/ 1012021 Edith Romero Garcia AP 60
.54
230295 12/10/2021 VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. AP 200
.00
230296 12110/2021 VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. AP 167.49
230297 12110/2021 Victory Tactical Gear, LLC AP 1,286.63 230298 12/10/2021 Westside Water Conditioning AP 173.50 230299 12110/2021 Win decker Inc AP 24,123.60
230300 12114/2021 Xerox Financial Services AP 2,464.46
230338 12117/2021 Gregory Almeida AP 342
.56
230339 12117/2021 Anthony Gomes AP 110.00
230340 12117/2021 Apex Annex Health Center, Inc. AP 1,375.00 230341 1211712021 Aramark Uniform Ser Inc AP 989
.98
230342 1211712021 AT&T Mobility AP 174.36
230343 12117/2021 AT&T AP 1,609
.84
230344 12117/2021 BJ's Consumers Choice AP 74
.00
230345 12/17/2021 BSK Associates AP 449.00
230346 12117/2021 Burton's Fire Inc. AP 31,404.06
230347 12117/2021 Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. AP 2,244.54
230348 12117/2021 California Landscape Supply, Inc. AP 1,878.48 230349 12117/2021 California Municipal Statistics, Inc. AP 500 .00
230350 12117/2021 Comcast AP 116.74
230351 1211712021 Don's Mobile Glass, Inc. AP 2,633
.00
230352 12117/2021 Employee Relations, Inc. AP 50
.00
230353 12/17/2021 Farmer Brothers Coffee AP 74.71
230354 12/17/2021 Federal Express Corporation AP 7.68
230355 12117/2021 Golden State Warriors LLC AP 8,550.00 230356 12/17/2021 GCS Environmental Equipment Services AP 535.27 230357 12/17/2021 Mary Lou Gilardi AP 86.02
230358 12117/2021 Gouveia Engineering Inc. AP 11,832.85 230359 1211712021 Halcyon Creek Inc. AP 11,500
.00
230360 12117/2021 Judy K. Hall AP 395
.70
230361 1211712021 Henley Pacific, LLC AP 206.50
230362 12/17/2021 Jerry Witt AP 2,389.00
230363 12117/2021 Kalmikov Enterprises, Inc AP 304.00
230364 12117/2021 Krazan & Associates AP 4,506.25
230365 12117/2021 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings AP 414.00 230366 12117/2021 Tim J Law AP 7,400.00
230367 12117/2021 Lucas Business Systems AP 7.99
230368 1211712021 Marfab Inc AP 377.01
230369 12/17/2021 Merced County Recorders AP 34
.00
230370 12/1712021 Modesto Janitorial Supply Center, Inc. AP 147.17 230371 12117/2021 Monterey Auto Services Inc. AP 517.24 230372 12117/2021 Isidra Martinez AP 600.00
230373 12117/2021 North Central Laboratories AP 71.15
230374 1211712021 The Office City AP 245.56
230375 12117/2021 OSE AP 210
.24
230376 12117/2021 O'Reilly Auto Parts AP 814.29
230377 12/17/2021 Pace Supply Corp. AP 389.35
230378 12/17/2021 Premier Training Services, LLC AP 220.00 230379 12/17/2021 Price Paige and Company Accountancy Corporation AP 24,200 .00
230380 12/17/2021 Quad Knopf, Inc. AP 4,506.90
230381 12/17/2021 Reliable Termite Solutions, Inc. AP 95.00 230382 12117/2021 Sherwin Williams Co AP 1,124.32
230383 1211712021 Frank Silveria AP 600.00
230384 12117/2021 Springbrook Software, Inc. Springbrook Holding Company LLC AP 2,168.00 230385 12117/2021 Sorensens True Value AP 696.93
230386 1211712021 Sorensens True Value AP 7.17
15 230387 12/17/2021 Sprint Solutions, Inc. AP 645.83
230388 12/17
/2021 Superior Pool Products, LLC AP 37.13
230389 12117/2021 SWRCB Accounting Office AP 17,666.00
230390 12117/2021 Trans County Title Co AP 2,500.00
230391 12/17/2021 Triangle Rock Products AP 151.36
230392 12117
/2021 USA Blue Book AP 149.77
230393 12/17/2021 Law Offices of William A Vaughn AP 13,985 .10
230394 12117/2021 Westamerica Bank
- Cafeteria Plan AP 67,944.70
230395 12/17/2021 Westside Water Conditioning AP 41.55
230396 1211712021 Win decker Inc AP 180.50
230397 12117/2021 Young's Air Conditioning AP 311.00
230398 12117/2021 Aflac-Customer Service AP 366
.86
230399 12117/2021 AFSCME District Council 57 AP 1,358.10 230400 12/17/2021 Los Banos Fitness & AP 35.00
230401 12117/2021 Los Banos Police Assn AP 1,120.00
230402 12/17/2021 Los Banos Police Assn AP 280.00
230403 12/17/2021 MassMutual AP 1,162.62
230404 12117/2021 MassMutual AP 2,730.00
230405 12117/2021 Nationwide Retirement Solutions AP 4,645.00 230406 12117/2021 Professional Fire Fighter AP 900.00
230407 12/17/2021 State Disbursement Unit AP 1,898.50
230408 12117/2021 Vantagepont Transfer Agents
- 306797 AP 911.90
230409 1211712021 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents
- 801838 AP 6,975.00
230410 12/2312021 AmerigasPropane,LP AP 477.83
230411 12/23
/2021 Anderson Pump Company Inc AP 10
,254.67
230412 12/23
/2021 Apex Annex Health Center, Inc. AP 1,362.00
230413 12/2312021 Aramark Uniform Ser Inc AP 853.35
230414 12/2312021 AramarkUniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. AP 133.78 230415 12/2312021 AT&T Mobility AP 8,538.21
230416 12/2312021 AT&T AP 981.01
230417 12/23
/2021 BJ's Consumers Choice AP 86.00
230418 12/23/2021 Richard A Blak Phd AP 450.00
230419 12/23/2021 Boot Barn AP 127.23
230420 12/23
/2021 BSK Associates AP 1,343
.00
230421 12/23
/2021 California Dairies Inc AP 152.24
230422 12/23
/2021 Carpet Man pro flooring, Inc. AP 1,507.00
230423 12/23/2021 CDTFA California Dept. of Tax & Fee AP 211.00 230424 12/23/2021 CENCAL Machine & Fabrication Inc. AP 68.28 230425 12/23
/2021 Comcast AP 116
.16
230426 12/23/2021 Cook's Communications Corp. AP 618
.73
230427 12/23/2021 Copy Shipping Solutions AP 63.13
230428 12/23/2021 Covanta Holding Corporation AP 240.06 230429 12/2312021 CSG Consultants Inc. AP 22
,355.00
230430 12/23
/2021 City of Los Banos Escrow Account AP 1,987.64
230431 12123
/2021 Cares Consulting AP 600.00
230432 12/23/2021 Delta Wireless, Inc. AP 2,204.00
230433 12/2312021 Ducks Unlimited AP 250.00
230434 12/2312021 Federal Express Corporation AP 16.99
230435 12123/2021 Foster Bros Security Systems Inc. AP 567.83 230436 12/23
/2021 GCS Environmental Equipment Services AP 42.41
230437 12/23/2021 Henley Pacific, LLC AP 115.93
230438 12/2312021 TimJLaw AP 1,600.00
230439 12/23
/2021 Los Banos Car Wash Inc AP 220
.00
230440 12/23/2021 Mark Thomas & company. Inc. AP 10,385 .85
230441 12/23/2021 Marfab Inc AP 4.90
230442 12123/2021 Merced County Auditor Controller AP 1,255.00 230443 12/23/2021 Merced Truck & Trailer Inc AP 18.32
230444 12123/2021 Mid-Valley Disposal LLC AP 229
,128.38
16 230445 12123/2021 The Office City AP 200.21
230446 12/2312021 O'Reilly Auto Parts AP 273.42
230447 12123
/2021 PG&E Company AP 23.45
230448 12/2312021 Pace Supply Corp. AP 349.13
230449 12/2312021 PlaceWorks, Inc. AP 16,738.08
230450 12/23
/2021 Precision Civil Engineering, Inc AP 700
.00
230451 12123
/2021 Pools by Nelson AP 488
.00
230452 12/2312021 Jeremy Rahn AP 213.15
230453 12/23/2021 Santos Ford Inc. AP 97.32
230454 12123/2021 Save Mart Supermarkets AP 25.79
230455 12123
/2021 Sorensens True Value AP 647
.92
230456 12/23
/2021 Sorensens True Value AP 111.89
230457 12/23/2021 Superior Pool Products, LLC AP 4,595.21 230458 12/23/2021 SWRCB Accounting Office AP 23,783.00
230459 12123/2021 The Radar Shop, Inc. AP 47.50
230460 12/23/2021 Thirkettle Corporation AP 34
,634.70
230461 12/23
/2021 USA Blue Book AP 165.06
230462 12/2312021 Eleanor Najera AP 200.00
230463 12/23/2021 Carole Breeden AP 190.48
230464 12/23
/2021 MHP Builders Inc AP 197
.70
230465 12/2312021 Dorothy Dondo AP 23
.91
230466 12/23
/2021 Sunshine Investments AP 190.48
230467 1212312021 Elvira Cortez AP 76.37
230468 12/23/2021 Blossom Valley Realty, JR Souza AP 114.41 230469 12/23
/2021 Ricardo Hernandez AP
8.04 230470 12/23
/2021 Toshia & Lauren Kham AP 34
.82
230471 12123
/2021 D.R Horton AP 175.48
230472 12/23/2021 Samuel Sanchez AP 95.39
230473 12/23/2021 Sunshine Investments AP 165.13
230474 12/23
/2021 Tim and Janet Ash AP 23.93
230475 12/23
/2021 Eder Ramirez Gomez AP 20.76
230476 12123/2021 MHP Builders Inc AP 191.57
230477 12/23/2021 Vincent Delgado AP 80.14
230478 12123
/2021 D.R Horton AP 157.08
230479 12/2312021 lose Garcia AP 54.16
230480 12/23
/2021 Alexandrea Ritchey AP 46.71
230481 12/23/2021 Angelica Sandoval AP 27.52
230482 12123/2021 UC Construction AP 190.80
230483 12/2312021
D.R Horton AP 165.51
230484 12/23/2021 Maria Pineda AP 4.91
230485 12/23
/2021 Lourdes Navarrette AP 73.22
230486 12/23/2021 D.R Horton AP 158.62
230487 12/23/2021 Debra Foster AP 142.95
230488 12/23
/2021 Pankaj Dixit AP 149
.30
230489 12/23
/2021 Connie Lopes AP 136.60
230490 12/23/2021 Andrea Correa-Gonzalez AP 168.31
230491 12/23/2021 Kevin Shamee AP 92.24
230492 12/23
/2021 Abel Saldana AP 4.89
230493 12/23
/2021 MHP Builders Inc AP 186
.97
230494 12/23
/2021 Verizon Wireless AP 832.83
230495 12/23/2021 West Publishing Corporation AP 404.20 230496 12/23/2021 Win decker Inc AP 4,676.06
230497 12/23
/2021 Wendt Construction AP 909
.30
230498 12/23/2021 Sara Blevins AP 310
.00
230499 12/23/2021 Brock DeWitt AP 2,498.00
230500 12/23/2021 FBINAA AP 125.00
230501 12/23/2021 Fresno Police Department RT.C. AP 7,143.00 230502 12/23
/2021 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings AP 288.00 17 230503 12/2312021 Steve Macillas
230504 12/23/2021 Adriana Robledo
230505 12/23/2021 Ronny's Inc.
230506 12/2312021 Ronny's Inc.
230507 12/23/2021 Ronny's Inc.
230508 12/23/2021 The Gustine Police Department
230509 12/2312021 US Bank Corp Pymt System
230510 12/23/2021 Youth Evolution Activites
Break in check sequence due to the following:
Check # 230301 - # 230337 (Payroll)
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
Total Void Check Count:
Total Void Check Amount:
140.00
11.00 44,382.16
12,652.87
35,099.00
825.00
23,992.28
2,236.00
o
Total Valid Check Count: 286
Total Valid Check Amount: 1,151,118.08
Total Check Count: 286
Total Check Amount: 1,151,118.08
18 LOS Banos
At tile Crossroa"~ 0 :alUornia
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor & City Council Members
FROMa Gary Brizzee, Chief of Police
DATE: January 5,2021
SUBJECT: Request to Increase General Fund, General Materials and Supplies TYPE OF REPORT: Consent
Recommendation:
That the City Council amend the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 budget and increase $20,000 to Fund Code Enforcement 267, General Materials and Supplies, to cover costs associated with the construction of a fence to provide a designated area for those suffering homelessness and reduce impact to surrounding neighborhoods.
Discussion:
The police department has been working with local service providers, faith-based organizations, and other governmental organizations help reduce the impact of homelessness on our community. Our project provides a central space for those suffering homelessness to gather and have better access to service providers and care. The space provides access to dumpsters, portable restrooms and handwashing stations. Local service providers and the City will work together in a coordinated effort to monitor the site on a routine basis.
A 6-foot tall cyclone fence with privacy slats will be installed to provide a 12x12 foot space for homeless residents to camp, providing a barrier from the view of surrounding neighborhoods.
The police department obtained three quotes for fencing in the range of $15,350-$26,800. The $20,000 in requested funds provides a contingency for additional materials and site work to support the project.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact is a onetime cost of $20,000 to construct the barrier fencing.
Reviewe r; -
~~onyawiT ms\~ -
Finance Director
Resolution
19 RESOLUTION NO. __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LOS BANOS ADOPTING A REVISED
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022 AS IT
PERTAINS TO EXPENDITURES
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council of the City of Los Banos a proposal to increase the Code Enforcement, General Materials and Supplies expenditures for the 2021/2022 Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos may adjust the overall appropriation levels in each fund at any time during the 2021/2022 fiscal year by action to amend this budget; and
WHEREAS, the proposed budget increase of $20,000 in expenditures for the homeless encampment fence construction has been reviewed by City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby amend the 2021/2022 fiscal year budget account 100-421-100-267 to increase by $20,000.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 5th day of January 2022, by Council Member ___ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member ___ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
1 20
L·
ityO! B os anos
( ad , J al,{onlle
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor Faria and City Council Members
FROM: William A. Vaughn, City Attorney
DATE: January 5, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Consent Agenda
SUBJECT: Continuation of Virtual Meetings - Per AB 361
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. __ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361
BACKGROUND
California's Ralph M. Brown Act has been amended to allow fully virtual public meetings during a state of emergency after the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 into law on September 16,2021 .
DISCUSSION
The new law comes as local public agencies were preparing for the expiration of Executive Orders that currently allow virtual public meetings. AB 361 goes into effect immediately, and it amends Section 54953 of the Brown Act to allow virtual public meetings through January 1, 2024 in any of the following circumstances:
21 1. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
2. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
3. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
These circumstances allow agencies to hold entirely virtual public meetings during the current pandemic, while California is in a proclaimed state of emergency.
The previous teleconference rules under the Brown Act also remain in place, but are not as flexible (for instance each teleconference location must be identified in the agenda and the teleconference location must be accessible by the public).
If a City Councilor City Commission meeting is held virtually under the new provisions of AB 361, the agenda must still be posted under the appropriate timelines:
72 hours in advance for a regular meeting, and 24 hours in advance for a special City Council meeting. The agenda must include the meeting link or dial-in, so that members of the public may access the meeting. Members of the public must be allowed to address the City Councilor City Commission in real-time during the meeting. In addition to the real-time public comments; the City can continue to allow public comments to be submitted in advance.
AB 361 also has special provisions for technical glitches. In the event the meeting broadcast is disrupted, or if a technical issue on the agency's end disrupts public comment, the City Council cannot take any further action on the agenda until the technical issue is resolved.
Most significantly, in order to continue to hold virtual meetings when a state of emergency remains active, the City Council must make findings every 30 days that 1) the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and 2) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person or state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
The City Council previously adopted a Resolution 6405, on October 6, 2021, finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953. Those conditions have not changed and continue to exist. In fact, on November 10, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-21-21 which extended through March 31, 2022, the state of emergency in California related to the threat of COVID-19. And on December 13, 2021 the California 22 Department of Public Health (CDPH) added the requirement that masks to be worn by all employees in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, for the four weeks (December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022). Staff is recommending that the City Council reauthorize remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos pursuant to the provisions of AS 361 by adoption of the attached Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending that for the time being City Council meetings continue to be held virtually pursuant to and under the requirements of AS 361 as outlined above.
Reviewed by:
Sonya hams, v.JQ~ Finance Director
23 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24 RESOLUTION NO. __ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Los Banos' legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 - 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City's legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 361, extending the authority of public agencies to conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, during the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, in light of the on-going pandemic, AB 361 amends the Brown Act (specifically Government Code section 54953) and gives public agencies the option to continue meeting virtually under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Resolution 6405, on October 6, 2021, finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in section 54953(e), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency that exists in the City of Los Banos, and the City Council has done so; and WHEREAS, such conditions continue to exist in the City of Los Banos; and 25 WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a statewide emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic on March 4,2020; and
WHEREAS, State Public Health Officer declared by Order of June 11, 2021 "We must remain vigilant against variants of the disease especially given high levels of transmission in other parts of the world and due to the possibility of vaccine escape. For these reasons, COVID-19 remains a concern to public health and, in order to prevent its spread, limited and temporary public health requirements remain necessary at this time."; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, Cal/OSHA issued new emergency temporary standards (ETS) on COVID-19 infection prevention for the workplace. The regulations require a" individuals at City worksites to abide by certain rules, including wearing face coverings and socially distancing; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-21-21 which extended through March 31, 2022, the state of emergency in California related to the threat of COVID-19.
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021 the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) added the requirement that masks to be worn by a" employees in a" indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, for the four weeks (December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022).
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the declared statewide emergency; the declaration the State Public Health Officer by Order of June 11, 2021; and the Cal/OSHA issued new emergency temporary standards (ETS) on COVID-19 infection prevention for the workplace, the Los Banos City Council does hereby find that the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos shall continue to conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953; and
NOW THEREFORE, the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE and ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 2. Affirmation. The City Council hereby finds that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.
Section 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager, the Management Staff, and legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos are hereby authorized and directed to 26 take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953{e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
Section 4. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) 30 days from adoption, or such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of City of Los Banos may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 5th day of January 2022, by Council Member ___ _ _ who moved for its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member , and the Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria, III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
27 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
28 LOS Banos
I t 11£ ll ' , ads of Califonlia
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor Faria and City Council Members
FROM: Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director \fj£.
DATE: January 5, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG Industrial Annexation and Pre-Annexation Development for AMG and Associates
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Receive staff's presentation of the staff report;
• Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; • Consider testimony presented at the public hearing, the information in the staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; • Consider a Resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) and mitigation monitoring plan; and
• Waive the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. authorizing the execution of a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement between the City of Los Banos and AMG & Associates, LLC relative to the property located at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110- 007.
1 =
29 Background:
On November 12,2014, the Los Banos Planning Commission recommended approval of the AMG Industrial Annexation and Prezone with associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for the Annexation of approximately 28.5 acres into the City of Los Banos. Subsequently, on January 7,2015, the Los Banos City Council approved the AMG Industrial Annexation and Pre-zone, MND, and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement.
Following City Council approval, the project was submitted to the Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to consider the annexation into the incorporated city limits of the City of Los Banos. The LAFCo Board reviewed the proposal and recommended a re-evaluation of the environmental document for issues relating to inconsistencies within the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project's proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a result, the Annexation was never approved by LAFCo and the associated Pre-Annexation Development Agreement was never executed/recorded by the City of Los Banos.
In 2017 the City remedied the inconsistencies within the 2030 General Plan and EIR by preparing a Subsequent EIR (SCH#2016051033) and General Plan Land Resources Amendment which was adopted by the Los Banos City Council on September 6,2017.
Following the approval of the Subsequent General Plan EIR, the applicant pursued the revisions to the AMG Industrial Annexation Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2020, which the City has been working with JB Anderson Land Use Planning on the preparation of the Subsequent MND (SCH #2014091056).
Since the project was previously entitled in 2015 by the Los Banos City Council, the current proposal before the City Council is for the approval of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and revised Pre-Annexation Development Agreement. The original approval of the Annexation and Prezone in 2015 remain are still valid entitlements.
The Los Banos Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter on December 8, 2021 and recommended approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG Industrial Annexation and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement for AMG & Associates to the Los Banos City Council for consideration.
Discussion:
The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Los Banos in Merced County. As depicted on the map below, the project site is surrounded by City boundaries on three sides (colored areas). The parcel is approximately 28.5 acres and is bound by Overland Avenue to the north (unincorporated), developed residential property to the east, partially developed Industrial property to the south, and Johnson Road and Kagome Food Processing to the west.
2 !
i
1 30
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, a Subsequent Initial Study was prepared to identify and assess potential environmental impacts as a result of this project. Through the Subsequent Initial Study, staff determined that the project would not result in any significant adverse affects with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Staff prepared a Notice of Intent for Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) which was posted at the Merced County Clerk's Office and sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation and review by various agencies on October 19, 2020 and closed on November 18, 2020. The Notice of Intent was also published in the Los Banos Enterprise on October 19, 2020 to allow the public to comment on the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comment letters were received by the Department of Conservation, Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Laborers International Union of North America Local Union 1130 (L1UNA), and the Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The letters received are included with this staff report as Attachment 3 and the City's response to these letters are included as Attachment 4.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate when an initial study has been prepared and a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because mitigation measures will be implemented which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring 3 31
Program and have reduced any potential impacts to less than significant.
ANNEXATION ANALYSIS
The proposed annexation provides a logical boundary, as required by Merced County LAFCo annexation policies. The annexation area is an in-fill of an area south of Overland Avenue. Land to the east, south, and west of the property are already within the City limits, and the project site is presently the only area on the south side of Overland Avenue between Mercey Springs Road and Johnson Road that is not within the City limits. The annexation request includes the entire right-of-way width of Overland Avenue. If the City approves the annexation request, a formal application will be made to LAFCo for annexation.
Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
While the project site is currently located outside the City of Los Banos' jurisdictional boundary, it is within the City's Sphere of Influence. The project site has been given an industrial land use designation in the City's General Plan, and the goals and policies of the General Plan are. applicable.
Currently allowed uses and development standards are those associated with the County's present zoning designation of City Plan Area and Merced County General Plan designation of General Agriculture (A-1). The applicant is requesting the proposed property be pre-zoned and incorporated into the City limits in the City of Los Banos Industrial Zoning District.
Economic Development
Merced County, through the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) process, coordinated a community walk-thru with a professional Site Selector in November 2013 and 2018. The visit with Los Banos determined that our weaknesses consisted of a lack of industrial inventory and a lack of shovel ready projects. The following items were identified by the Site Selector as being the most important to be competitive with surrounding communities:
./ Inventory of Ready Building & Sites
./ Appropriate Utility Infrastructure
./ Labor Force Ready to Work (documented)
./ Streamlined Permitting Process
./ Community Support for Industry
Entitling this project site would help Los Banos take a step forward in strengthening the inventory of shovel ready industrial projects in order to compete with similar communities.
Community Amenity Fee
Resolution 5045 was adopted by the Los Banos City Council July 2008 that establishes an amenity fee for new annexations into the City of Los Banos. The resolution states that the City will support annexation proposals based upon the overall benefit to the City.
Options to address City benefit include the following strategies:
4 32
a) Payment of a Community Amenity Fee to be used for financing or constructing community facilities as determined by the City Council, or b) Construction of financing of public improvements which add to the quality of life for the existing and future residents of the City, or
c) Other amenities or contributions as may be approved by the City Council, or d) Development of industrial or regional retail land uses, or e) Contribution towards meeting the City's non-market rate housing needs as stated in the Housing Element, or
f) A combination of the above.
The project proposal is considered a benefit to the community as it is providing industrial land for future development into the incorporated City limits. The addition of industrial property to the City's weak inventory is a benefit to the community and as such the project would not be subject to the Community Amenity Fee.
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
Development Agreement Law and annexation law permits cities and counties to contract with private interests (property developers) for their mutual benefit in a manner not otherwise available to the contracting parties. These agreement, as authorized by the Development Agreement Law and by common law, assure property developers that they can proceed with their projects with the assurance that approvals granted by public agencies will not change during the period of development. Cities and counties are equally assured that costly infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, sewers, fire protection facilities, will be available at the time development projects come on line.
The benefits of the proposed Pre-Annexation Development Agreement to the City are:
a) Adoption of a Specific Plan to be approved by the City for the entire 28.5 acre Project Site prior to any application for further entitlements or development. b) Formation or annexation of the Property to a Community Facilities District (CFD) created for the purpose of funding public safety.
c) Formation or annexation of the Property to a Lighting and Landscaping District (L&LD) created for the purpose of maintaining public landscape areas, signage, and public lighting and traffic signal maintenance.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A public hearing notice was published in the Los Banos Enterprise and notices were mailed out to property owners within a 300' radius of the project site on December 24, 2021 for the hearing on January 5, 2022. As of the date of this staff report no comments have been received.
5 33
1. Resolution Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit A: CEQA Findings
Exhibit B: Subsequent IS/MND (SCH #2014091056)
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring Program
2. Ordinance Authorizing the Execution of Pre-Annexation Development Agreement Exhibit A: Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
3. CEQA Comment Letters
4. City Response to CEQA Comment Letters
5. General Plan Land Use Map
6. Public Hearing Notice - December 24, 2021
6 34
RESOLUTION NO. __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING
SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (SCH #2014091056)
ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
WHEREAS, AMG & Associates, LLC initiated consideration of an Annexation and Pre-Zone application for the property located at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, the project environmental impacts were evaluated in a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos finds that the subject property site is within the Los Banos Sphere of Influence (SOl); and WHEREAS, no new significant information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result in new or greater significant effects not studied in the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent was posted and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) was made available for public review on October 19, 2020 thru November 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, AMG Industrial Annexation was found not to have a significant effect on the environment, and all impacts were evaluated to be less than significant; and WHEREAS, said Annexation and Pre-Zone were reviewed and examined by City of Los Banos staff; and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8,2021, for the purpose of considering the project and at the completion of the public hearing, duly considered the evidence presented and recommended approval to the Los Banos City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for January 5, 2022, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65091 by advertisement in the Los Banos Enterprise and by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on 1 35
December 24, 2021, to consider and take testimony regarding the MND (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG Industrial Annexation; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for a City Council meeting on January 5, 2022, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65091 by advertisement in the Los Banos Enterprise and by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on December 24, 2021 to consider and take testimony regarding the MND (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG Industrial Annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos has reviewed the AMG & Associates Annexation and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056), CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C), incorporated herein by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby approve Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG & Associates Industrial Annexation for the property located at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 5th day of January 2022, by Council Member __ _ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member __ _ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
2 36
EXHIBIT A
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS FOR AMG
INDUSTRIAL ANNEXATION
Pursuant to the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City as Lead Agency under CEQA adopts the following findings required by CEQA, along with the facts and evidence upon which each finding is based.
The City of Los Banos City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, AMG Industrial Annexation was evaluated in a Subsequent Initial Study dated October 16, 2020, which determined that the project would not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the Subsequent Initial Study were implemented and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2014091 056) was made.
2. The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequately noticed and circulated for public review. The City distributed the Notice of Intent with copies of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, and posted the Notice of Intent at the Merced County Clerk's office on October 19, 2020.
3. On the basis of the whole record, including the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and public comment, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment with proper mitigation.
4. The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA and on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence of significant new information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result in new or greater significant effects not studied in the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5. The City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Department, located at 520 J Street in Los Banos, is the custodian of the documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the determination to adopt the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is based.
6. Upon approval of the project analyzed in the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Los Banos will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
7. Prior to considering the proposal, the City Council considered the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3 37
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
38 rosBanos
I I t .,
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Annexation and PreZone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement - AMG Industrial Annexation
Notice is hereby given that the City of los Banos has prepared an Initial Study (IS) of environmental effects and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), for the AMG Industrial Annexation and Prezone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement.
The ISjMND has analyzed the potential environmental effects of the project in the range of environmental subject areas specified in the california Environmental Quality Act (CEQAl and the CEQA Guidelines. On the basis of this analysis, the IS/MND finds that the project will not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the IS/MND are implemented. The City will consider the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and proposed mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan before approval of the proposed improvement project.
In accordance with Sections 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the 15/MND was released for a 30-day public reviewed from October 16, 2020 to November 16, 2020. Based comments received during the public review period, revisions were made to the IS/MND, and it is being recirculated in accordance with Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of the IS/MNO are available for public review at the City of Los Banos City Hall at 520 J Street, los Banos, California 93635.
The City of Los Banos will accept public and agency comments on the IS/MND during a 30-day review period that will begin on October 16,2020 and end on November 16,2020 at 5:00pm. Comments may be sent to the City of Los 8anos, 520 J Street, los Banos, CA 93635, Attn: Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director or via email at staf.y ~Jms@I sbanos. rg .
In addition, notice is hereby given that the los 8anos Planning Commission will consider adoption of the IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project at a public meeting scheduled for December 9, 2020 at 5:30 PM virtually using GoToMeeting, the link will be made available on the City's website at www.tosbanos.org.
~0-~£ October 16, 2020
Community and Economic Development Director
39 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
40 LOS Banos
Public Review Draft Subsequent Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration
J.B. ANDI:RSON
AMG Industrial Annexation
File No. Annexation and Pre-Zone 2013 .. 01, and
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
prepared by
City of Los Banos
Community and Economic Development Department
520 J Street
Los Sa nos, CA 93635
prepared with the assistance of
J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, California 95366
October 16, 2020
~AND USE P L ANNING
41 This page intentionally left blank.
42 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 INITIAL STUDY 2
1. Project Title 2
2. Lead Agency Name and Address 2
3. Contact Person and Phone Number 2
4. Project Location 2
S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 3
6. Existing Setting 3
7. Existing General Plan Designation 7
8. Existing Zoning 8
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 8
10. Description of the Project 8
11. Required Approvals 9
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required 9
13. California Native American Tribes Consultation 9
14. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 10
15. Lead Agency Determination 11
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 14
1. Aesthetics 14
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 17
3. Air Quality 20
4. Biological Resources 26
S. Cultural Resources 29
6. Energy 31
7. Geology and Soils 33
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 37
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 42
10. Hydrology and Water Quality 46
11. Land Use and Planning SO
12. Mineral Resources 51
13. Noise 52
14. Population and Housing S3
15. Public Services 56
16. Recreation S9
17. Transportation/Traffic 61
18. Tribal Cultural Resources 63
19. Utilities and Service Systems 65
20. Wildfire 68
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 70
REFERENCES 73
43 FIGURES
1. Site Photos
2. location Map
3. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
APPENDICES
Appendix A
3 6
8 7
74 74
44 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is a Subsequent Initial Study, which concludes that a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines.
On December 3,2014, the Los Banos City Council certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 1014091056) for the annexation and prezone of the Subject Property being evaluated in this Subsequent Initial Study. This document is available as (Reference in this Initial Study as Appendix A. It can also be reviewed at City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California 93635.
In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, subsequent activities involving the project must be examined in light of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MNO). This Subsequent IS/MND consists of an update of what was previously adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014. It is important to note that the "Project" as defined in Section 2.0 of this IS/MND is the same "Project" evaluated in 2014. As such, this IS/MND identifies whether there are any new or substantially more severe impacts, as well as whether the adopted mitigation measures will ensure that impacts are less than significant or revisions to the adopted mitigation measures or new mitigation measures are required. 11 P ,) g e
45 2.0 fNITfAl STUDY
1. PROJECT TITLE
AMG Industrial - Annexation and Pre-Zone No. 2013-01, and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Los Banos
Community and Economic Development Department
520 J Street
Los Banos, California 93635
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Ms. Stacy Souza Elms
Community and Economic Development Director
(209)827-7000
[email protected]
4. PROJECT LOCATION
The Proposed Project is located immediately adjacent to the City of Los Banos city limits, within the jurisdiction of Merced County. The Project Site is located on the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the City of los Banos in Merced County.
The 28.5-acre Project Site is bound by Overland Avenue to the north, Johnson Road to the west, and industrial uses to the south.
The Proposed Project's surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Agricultural land and rural residences located in Merced County South: Willmott Self Storage, industrial uses, and vacant land located within Los Banos city limits East: Single-family residences located within Los Banos city limits West: Kagome Industrial Facility within Los Banos city limits Figure 2 - Location Map, provides an illustration of the Proposed Project's location. 2lP(lge
46 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
AMG and Associates
P.O. Box 260770
Encino, CA 91436
6. EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project Site has been historically utilized for agricultural purposes and is actively farmed with row crops. There are no existing structures within the Proposed Project Area. Urban development (single-family and industrial development) has occurred on the south, east, and west sides of the Project Site, along with associated street and utility improvements. Topography of the site is relatively flat. There are no tress located within the Project Area. There is an existing agricultural ditch along the northern portion of the Project area. Figure 1, Site Photos, provides photographic representation of the Project Site and surrounding uses.
Figure 1 - Site Photos
Standing on the western edge of the Proposed Project Site looking east. 31Page
47 Figure 1-Site Photos
Standing on the western edge of the Proposed Project Site looking south.
Standing on the western edge ofthe Proposed Project Site looking north. 4 I P 21 g e
48 Figure 1 - Site Photos
Standing on the western edge of the Proposed Project Site looking west. slP;)re
49 Figure 2 -location Map
'* = Project location
50 7. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The City of los Banos' 2030 General Plan land use designation for the 28.S± acre site is Industrial. Figure 2, below, illustrates the Proposed Project Site's existing General Plan land use designation.
Figure 3 - Existing General plan Land Use Designations
.
I _ J -- ~ L J
I -
I
I
I I
* = Project Location
71f' di; l
51 8. EXISTING ZONING
The County of Merced currently has the Project Site designated as "Industrial (I)" in its General Plan. The County's zoning designation is listed as Agriculture (AG).
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
Surrounding land uses include existing agriculture to the north, existing residential uses to the east, existing industrial uses to the south and west. Properties to the north have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential, properties to the east have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. Properties to the south and west have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial.
The Proposed Project's surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Agricultural land and rural residences located in Merced County South: Willmott Self Storage and vacant land located within los Banos city limits East: Single-family residences located within Los Banos city limits West: Kagome Industrial Facility within los Banos city limits Figure 2 - Location Map, provides an illustration of the Proposed Project's location.
10. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Project Summary
The Proposed Project consists of an Annexation and Pre-zone, and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement to allow for the annexation of the 28.S-acre parcel (APN: 081-110-007) into the city limits of the City of los Banos.
Annexation and Pre-zone
As previously discussed, the Proposed Project Site is bounded by existing city limits to the south and east.
The Proposed Project includes the Annexation of the Proposed Project Site into the City of Los Banos. The annexation will include a Pre-Zoning of the Proposed Project Site to Industrial, which is consistent with the los Banos General Plan Land Use Designation for the Proposed Project Site. The Proposed Project does not include any specific development. At this time, the Proposed Project consists only of an Annexation and Pre-Zone request, in addition to the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement described below.
52 Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
The Proposed Project also includes a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement. The Pre-Anne)(ation Development Agreement will clarify future improvements, development fees, and City expectations for the future development of the Proposed Project Site.
11. REQUIRED ApPROVALS
The following approvals are required from the City of Los Banos:
• Pre-Zone
• Annexation (authorization to submit an annexation application with Merced LAFCo)
12. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE ApPROVAL IS REQUIRED
The following approvals are required from other Public Agencies:
• Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) -Approval of Annexation
13. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY AND CULTURALLY AFFILIATED
WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1? IF SO, HAS CONSULTATION BEGUN?
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City has not received any requests for consultation. However, in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AS 52), the City requested a list from the Native American Heritage Commission of potentially interested tribes and sent out consultation requests presenting the Proposed Project and asking for consultation. To date, the City has not received any requests for consultation.
53 14. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAlLV AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Resources I
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy I
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous
Emissions Materials
Hydrology and Water Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Quality
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service I Systems r
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of I
i
Significance I I I :
10 I P age
54 15. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this Initial Study evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT helve a significant effect on the environment, and a I NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
J
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will I X not be a signiftcant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to I by the Project Proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based 00 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. Ao ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required, but it must analyze only the erfects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required.
¢fb?().~$
Ms. Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director October 16, 2020 111 P .: g e
55 SECTION 3.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS;
1) A brief e)(planation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the (Referenced in1ormation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved) including off-site as well as on-site) cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, Jess than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-(Referenced).
S) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3}(O). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysiS.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "less than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated/, describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
d) Pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study is tiered from the City's 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report {SCH No. 2006121055) and the 12 I P;l g e
56 City's Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Land Use Resource Amendment (SCH No. 2016051033).
In addition, and as described above in Section 1.0, This document is a Subsequent Initial Study, which concludes that a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEOA, speCifically, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines.
On December 3, 2014, the Los Banos City Council certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2014091056) for the annexation and prezone of the Subject Property being evaluated in this Subsequent Initial Study. This document is available as (Reference in this Initial Study as Appendix A. It can also be reviewed at City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California 93635.
Both documents are available for review at the City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Department, 520 j Street, Los Banos, CA 93635 or on the City of Los Banos website: hltg:LLwww.losbanos.orgL.
6) lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist (References to information sources for potential impacts le.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). (Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a (Reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threShold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 13IP<lge
57 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix "Gil Environmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines.
1. AESTHETICS _. WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incor. ration
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
f outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
. State scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and Its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the
project is In an urbanized area, would the I project conflict with applicable zoning and I other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or i
nighttime views in the area?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
I
I
i
LessThon
Significant
Impact
x
x
x
Impact ~ I
x
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 (Attachment A of this Initial Study) determined that impacts to aesthetics were primarily less than significant. Impacts to scenic resources and the existing visual character orquality of the site were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Page 9 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
o. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 14 I P il b e
58 b, Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a State scenic highway? According to the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Proposed Project area is not considered a scenic vista, The Project Site consists of open land and scattered single-family residences. The public views from the site to the east and south are of urban uses. To the west is a mixture of urban uses and open ground in the City, and to the north is open ground within the County. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
The Proposed Project is located near the city limits of the City of Los Banos and is not located on a state designated highway, Based on a review of the California Department of Transportation website (http://www.dotca.gov/ hg/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm). the nearest state scenic highway is Interstate 5, between the Merced County line and San Joaquin County line. Mercey Springs Road (SR 165) is not designated as a state scenic highway. The Proposed Project is not located on or adjacent to Interstate 5, and therefore will have no impact to a state scenic highway. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views Of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that Ofe experienced from pubJicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Proposed Project is comprised of 28.S±-acres in Merced County, adjacent to the City of los Banos and is currently surrounded by urban development that is within the City. The existing visual character of the Proposed Project is agricultural lands. In addition, the City of Los Banos, through its General Plan, has designated the Proposed Project Site for urban development consistent with industrial land uses. The Proposed Project consists of the Annexation into the City of Los Banos and Pre-Zoning of the Project Site to Industrial land uses. The Proposed Project is not expected to degrade the scenic quality of the area, once developed. The Project Site is surrounded by existing urban development, including residential, and industrial land uses. The Proposed Project is consistent with the visual character of the surrounding urbanized area, Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project create a new source of substantia/light or glare which Would adversely allect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Proposed Project does not result in any specific development that will create a new source of substantial light or glare. However, as the City receives development applications for projects within the Proposed Project area, said projects may result in new sources of light or glare, As a standard Condition of Approval for any projects within the Proposed Project area, all exterior lighting installed as a pa rt of any future development of the site will be required to be designed in such a way as to minimize glare and light spill in order to preserve existing daytime/night-time views. Furthermore, compliance with General Plan Policy and the City's Zoning Ordinance will be required. Most notable, any Applicant and/or Project 15 I P " ~! 12
59 Proponent for any project within the Proposed Project area will be required to submit for approval a lighting plan, and this lighting plan shall be prepared in accordance with City standards and policies, Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
16 I P (.J g e
60 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potent;ally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies . may (Refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) I prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may (Refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104 (g)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could reSUlt in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
x
x
x
x
x
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that impacts to agricultural resources were primarily less than significant. Impacts to potential conflicts with an existing Williamson Act Contract were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Page 10 of Attachment A). 171Page
61 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a):
o. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farm/and), os shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Formland Mapping and Monitoring Program a/the Colifornia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? rn 2017, the City Council certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2016051033) and adopted a General Plan Amendment (as (Referenced above) to amend the General Plan's Land Resources Element to clarify the information as it relates to the City's inventory of agricultural resources.
Specifically, the General Plan, adopted in 2.009, erroneously illustrated portions of the planning area within the Urban Growth Boundary as Urban and Built-up Land when these areas were identified as farmland, including the Proposed Project Site. The update corrected the acreage of farmland conversion of Important Farmland. The clarified farmland mapping indicated an additional increase of farmland conversion of approximately 3,343 acres in lost important farmland. The updated build-out ofthe General Plan area would result in a farmland conversion of approximately 5,896 acres of Prime Farmland, 943 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 1,106 acres of Unique Farmland. The total loss of Important Farmland would be 7,945 acres. The Proposed Project is located within the area evaluated by the SEIR.
According to the City's General Plan Land Resources Amendment and specifically, Figure 3-3 - Revised Farmland Map, the Proposed Project is located on land classified as Prime Farmland (P). The Project Site is currently utilized for agricultural purposes (row crops). Surrounding land uses include Agriculture and rural residences to the north, single-family residences to the east, Wilmott Self Storage and other industrial uses to the south, and Kagome Industrial Facility to the west. The existing agricultural uses are active and will continue until such time as future development occurs. The Plan Area is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural) per the Merced County Zoning Map.
The Proposed Project includes annexation of less than fifty (50) acres of Prime Farmland into the City of los Sanos for the purposes of urban development. The Developer and/or Project Proponent is not required to adhere to Mitigation Measure AG-l as identified above as it is less than 50 acres in size.
In addition, the Proposed Project is required to adhere to the Policies of the 2030 General Plan.
Ultimately, the agricultural impacts associated with the 2030 General Plan and 2017 General Plan Amendment to the Land Resources Element were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and as such and as discussed above, a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City.
As noted above, the Proposed Project is located within the City's adopted Urban Growth 80undary as defined in the General Plan. As such, the loss of Important Farmland, including Prime Farmland, is considered to be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the certified SEIR and the associated Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted as part of the General Plan Land Resources Element. The 18 I P <l g e
62 Proposed Project implements the City's General Plan, which will result in the loss of lands identified as Important Farmland. However, this loss of Important Farmland has been previouslV evaluated in the SEIR and as noted above, the impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the impacts to the IOS5 of Important Farmland is considered to be Less Than Significant.
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (b), (c), (d) and (e):
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or couse rezoning oj, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non{orest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
According to the Merced County Geographical Information Systems (GIS), the parce/located within the Proposed Project Site does not have an active Williamson Act Contract.
The Proposed Project is located on existing agricultural land and is bounded by primarily industrial, agricultural, and residential uses. The Project Site located within Merced County is zoned for agricultural uses. The Proposed Project includes an Annexation and Pre-Zoning into the City of Los Banos. The zoning district being proposed as a part of the Proposed Project's Pre-Zoning is Industrial (I) and future development within the Proposed Project area will be consistent with the City's I zoning district.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
The Proposed Project is not located near forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), and has a land use deSignation for urban uses in the City of Los Banos General Plan; therefore, it will not conflict with any forest larld uses, nor result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. The Proposed Project will have No Impact.
The Proposed Project area has a land use designation for Urban Uses as denoted in the City of los Banos 2030 General Plan. The Proposed Project is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Los Banos; and therefore, has been planned for eventual annexation into the City of Los Banos with transition from Agricultural Uses to Urban Uses. The Proposed Project will have a less Tnan Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
No Mitigation Measures will be implemented as part of this section. 19 I P i1 ,~ (,
63 3. AIR QUALITY -- WOUl.D THE PROJECT:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No Signijlcont with Signlflcont I Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporotlon
I Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of I x the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
I project region is non·attainment under an X
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality I
standard? I
I
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial I X I pollutant concentrations? I I d) Result in other emissions (such as those l
leading to odors) adversely affecting a I X j I substantial number of people? --"
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (/S/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to air quality were less than significant. (Refer to Page 11 of Attachment A).
SETTING
The Proposed Project is located in west Merced County, which is a portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality management under the federal and state Clean Air Acts is the responsibility of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
The federal and state governments have adopted Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for the primary air pollutants of concern, known as "criteria" air pollutants. Air quality is managed by the SJVAPCD to attain these standards. Primary standards are established to protect the public health; secondary standards are established to protect the public welfare. The attainment status of the SJVAB for Merced County with respect to the applicable AAQS are shown in the following table.
The SJVAB is considered non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.S), because the AAQS for the pollutants are sometimes exceeded. The SJVAB is Attainment/Unclassified for carbon 20 I P age
64 monoxide, but select areas, not including the City of Los Banos, are required to abide by adopted carbon monoxide maintenance plans.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) through the Air Toxies Program is responsible for the identification a nd control of exposu re to air toxies, and notification of people that a re subject to sign ificant air toxic exposure. A principal air toxic is diesel particulate matter, which is a component of diesel engine exhaust.
The SJVAPCD has adopted regulations establishing control over air pollutant emissions associated with land development and related activities. These regulations include:
Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules)
Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FEDERAL AND STATE
AAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Designation I Classification
Federal Standards'
Ozone, i-hour No federal standardr
Ozone, 8-hour Nonattainment / Extremee
PM10 AttainmentC
PM2.S Nonattaiomentd
Carbon Monoxide Attainment / Unclassified
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment / Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment / Unclassifjed
Lead (particulate) No designation
Hydrogen Sulfide No federal standard
Sulfates No federal standard
Visibility-Reducing Particles No federal standard
Vinyl Chloride No federal standard
'See 40 CFR Part 81
"See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
State Standards
Nonattainment / Severe
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Nonatta inment
Attainment / Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
'On September 2S, 20M, EPA redesignated the SAn Joaquin Valley to Attainment for the PM10 National AAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan
<The SJV i~ designated nonatlainment lor the. 1997 PM2.S NAAQS. EPA designated the SIV as non~\tainment for the 2006 PM2.5 on November 13, 2009 (eHective Oecemb@r 14, 20091.
"Though the SJV was initially classified as serious non attainment for the 1997 8·hour ozone standard. EPA approved redassification of thi! SJV to extreme nonatlainment in the Federal Register on Mav. 2010 (effective June 4,2010. 'Effective June 15, 2005, tile EPA revoked the (ederall·hour Olone standard, including associated designations and ciasslf,calioos. EPA has previously clastified tile SJv as extreme nonatlainment lor thi~ standard. EPA apprOlled the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8,2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many appU<:able requirements for extreme I·hour ozone nonattainmenl areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.
21 1 p I~ e
65 The SJVAPCD has adopted a CEQA impact analysis gUideline titled Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The GAMAQI is utilized in the following air quality impact analysis where applicable. The GAMAQI establishes impact significance thresholds for the non-attainment pollutant PM10 and precursors to the non-attainment pollutant ozone: reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
ROG 10 tons!year
NOx 10 tons/year
PM10 15 tons/year
For a typical development project, the need to perform an ambient air quality analysis is determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the project size, unless exempt under the District's limit of 25,000 square feet of industrial space. Potentially significant emissions related to the construction and operation of land development projects are subject to regulation under SJVAPCD Rule 9510 Indirect Sources.
Development associated with the Proposed Project will exceed the thresholds triggering the requirements of Rule 9510. Therefore, the Project Proponent will be required to comply with Rule 9510 and conduct an Indirect Source Review (ISR) process with SJVAPCD.
The Proposed Project construction will be subject to SNAPeD rules related to control of construction emission, including the various rules comprising Regulation VIII. The application of these rules to the Proposed Project will further limit the potential air quality effects of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will generate small amounts of new on-road traffic and associated ROG, NOx and PM emissions during project operation.
The SJVAPCD regulations that are potentially applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized below.
Regulation VIJI (Fugitive Dust PMJO Prohibitions)
Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM)o emissions (predominantly dustjdirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.
Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coating)
This rule sets limits on the volatile organic compounds, a component of ROG, allowed in various paints and other coatings.
Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Generation)
Rule 9410 was adopted in 2009, The purpose of Rufe 9410 is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites, which 66 in turn would reduce emissions of NOx, volatile organic compounds (a component of ozone), and particulate matter. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more eligible employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. An ETRIP for each worksite must be submitted to the SJVAPCD, and the ETRIP must be updated annually. Annual reporting includes the results of the commute verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Rule 9510, also known as Indirect Source Review, was adopted in 2005. This rule is intended to reduce or mitigate construction and operational emissions of NO. and PMlO generated by new development, either directly and/or by payment of off-site mitigation fees. Construction emissions of NO. and PM10 must be reduced by 20% and 45%, respectfully. Operational emissions of NO. and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3% and 50%, respectfully. Rule 9510 applies to singlefamily reSidential, multi-family residential and commercial projects over a certain unit or square footage threshold.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
(1. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The City of Los Banos is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The air quality impacts for the Proposed Project have been analyzed within the General Plan EIR. General Plan Policy "POSR-I-48" requires the implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce air pollutant emissions due to construction work and/or operation of equipment. Because implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to exceed emissions thresholds, implementation of the Proposed Project may result in the generation of air quality impacts. As such, a mitigation measure has been incorporated to require the Project Proponent to conduct an Indirect Source Review (ISR) with the SJVAPCD in accordance with Rule 9510. No mitigation measures would be required over and above what is included as part of the ISR Application in compliance with SJAPCD Rule 9510. As such, the impact is considered to be Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 0/ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
The Proposed Project is subject to the Air District's Rule 9510. District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is intended to reduce a project's impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigation by payments of applicable off-site mitigation fees. Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce construction exhaust NOx and PM 10 by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectfuHy. The Proposed Project exceeds the ISR threshold of 25,000 square feet of industrial space; and therefore, a mitigation measure to comply with the Air District's Rule 9510 has been added, respectfully (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 23 I P 11 r ~
67 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As stated in the City's 2030 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), some receptors are considered more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reason for greater than average sensitivity includes pre-existing health problems, pro)(imity to emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Land uses such as schools, children's day care centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress and other air qualityrelated health problems. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and industrial areas because people generally spend longer periods of time at their reSidences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions.
The Proposed Project will result in short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction activities and will not involve long-term operation of any stationary diesel engine or other major on-site stationary source ofToxic Air Contaminants (TAC). The Proposed Project will include industrial uses that may include stationary diesel engine or other stationary source of TACs. However, if proposed, these uses will be required to adhere to the Air District's Rules and Regulations as well as be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Construction activities have the potential to generate emissions related to the number and types of equipment typically associated with construction. Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site grading, paving, and other construction activities result in the generation of TACs. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the Proposed Project. Because health risks associated with exposure to any TACs are correlated with high concentrations over a long period of exposure (e.g., over a 70-year lifetime), the temporary, intermittent construction-related TAC emissions would not be expected to cause any health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The future development of the Proposed Project is required to adhere to the City's General Plan Policies and Implementation Actions, including Implementing Action POSR-I-38 which requires Best Management Practices to be included in the construction of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the Developer will be required to adhere to the SNAPCD's Rules and Regulations as it relates to construction related emissions, dust control, heavy equipment emissions, etc.
Implementing Action POSR-I-38
Requires Developers to implement Best Management Practices to reduce air pollutant emissions due to construction work and operation of equipment.
• During clearing, grading, earth-moving or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of construction roads, or other dust-preventive measures; • All materials excavated or graded shaH be either sufficiently watered or covered by canvas or plastiC sheeting to prevent excessive amounts of dust;
• All materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or covered by canvas sheeting to prevent excessive amounts of dust;
24 I P v g e
68 • All motorized vehicles shall have their tires watered before exiting a construction site; • The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation shall be minimized at all times; and
• All construction-related equipment shall be maintained in good working order to reduce exhaust from this equipment.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Proposed Project will result in short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction activity when the Proposed Project develops. However, prior to development, General Policy POSR-I-SO requires the City to use the SJVAPCD Guidelines in the review of development proposals.
The Proposed Project does not involve any features that will generate odors. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure AQ-l:
The Applicant and/or Project Proponent shall comply with Rule 9510, as adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Evidence of Rule 9510 compliance shall be submitted to the City's Community and Economic Development Department prior to the Proposed Project's final discretionary approval. For the purposes of the Proposed Project and this Mitigation Measure, the "final discretionary approval" shall constitute approval of any specific development project within the Proposed Project area. 2S I P ;; t:: e
69 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~- WOULD THE PROJEcr:
l Less ThDn
Potentially Significant Less ThDn No Signl/lcflnt with SIgnificant Impact Impact Mitlgotion Import Incorportltlon
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, X
policies, or regulations, or by the california I
Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and , I Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X !
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and I ,
Wildlife Service? I
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including. )( bot not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, . etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of I any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or I ! X I I migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of I :
I I I native wildlife nursery sites? !
I
I e} Conflict with any local poliCies or ordinances I I ! protecting blologlca! resources, such as a tree X
, preservation policy or ordinance? j
I ,
f} Conflict with the provisions of an adopted , !
i Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community I
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, , I I X
reglona', or state habitat conservation plan?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to biological resources were primarily less than significant. Impacts to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation by the California Department of Wildlife or U.S. 261 P n ~ e
70 Fish and Wildlife Service were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Pages 12 and 13 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANAlVSIS
Q. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Deportment of Fish and Wildlife or the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As noted previously, the Proposed Project is located on active farmland, and is surrounded by urban development on the west, south and east. Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan/EIR, and most notably, Figure 3.8-1 of the EIR, the Proposed Project is not located within an area known for the potential of containing any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regula Cions, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service? Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, the Proposed Project is not located within an area known to contain riparian habitat. Most, if not all, of the riparian habitat located within the City is located along the Los Banos Creek corridor. The Proposed Project is not located within, or adjacent to, los Banos Creek. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project hove a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Cleon Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, there are no identified wetlands within the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project inter/ere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wifdlife nursery sjtes?
Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, Significant impacts to wildlife corridors, as a result of the buildout of the General Plan Planning Area, occur with construction of the Highway 152 bypass. It is also noted that new development would cause an increase in both vehicular traffic levels and nighttime light levels, which would serve to deter wildlife movement. However, the Proposed Project is not located within the Highway 152 bypass area, Additionally, the Proposed Project is surrounded by existing City development on the west, south and east. Therefore, new development created as a result 27 I P a g <:
71 of the Proposed Project would have minimal impacts to wildlife corridors as surrounding urban development already exists. Therefore, the Proposed Project wilt have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As noted previously, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City's 2030 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, no trees are located within the Proposed Project Site. Therefore} the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
f Would the project conflict with the provisions of on adopted Habitat Conservation PIon, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other opproved locol, regional, or stote hobitat conservation pion? As evaluated and noted in the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, the City of Los Banos, including the Proposed Project Site, is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
28 I P a ~ e
72 5. CUL rURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
No Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorportltion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to X
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
Significance of an archaeological resource X
pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS ISjMND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to cultural resources were primarily less than significant. Impacts to historical resources and paleontological resources were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Page 14 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project cause a substantial cause a substantial odverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §lS064.S?
Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan EIR, there are thirteen (13) historic resource sites within the City's Planning Area, primarily in the downtown area. These sites were not identified to include the Proposed Project. As such, there are no historic resources or sites as defined by Section 15064.5 of the Government Code within the Proposed Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
b. Would the project couse a substantial adverse chance in the significance of on archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, "there ore seventeen recorded prehistoric archaeological sites and two historic archaeological sites within the Planning Area. Features of the prehistoric archaeological sites include prehistoric villages, occupational sites containing tools and milling equipment, buria' grounds, and human skull fragments. The Genero/ Plan identifies the Los Bonos Creek area os a highly sensitive area for potential orchaeological sites. II The Proposed Project is not located within the Los Banos Creek area, and therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources are considered to be minimal. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. 29 I P age
73 c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
It is not anticipated that the Proposed Project will disturb any human remains, as the Proposed Project does not consist of any physical construction. Upon approval of the Proposed Project, any future specific development projects proposed within the Project Site shall be independently evaluated in accordance with CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. At this time, the City will analyze any potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of said proposed specific development project. Therefore, at this time, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation Measures are not required for this topic.
30 I p i) g e74
6. ENERGY -- Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
No Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
a) Result in potentially significant environmental I
impact due to wasteful, i nefficien I, or X I
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
I
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MNO) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 did not consider Energy impacts associated with the Proposed Project, as Energy was not a topic identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2014.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
o. Would the project result in potentiaJ/y significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption 0/ energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a stote or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three (3) years, and the 2016 Title 24 went into effect on January 11 2017. The City has adopted the 2019 versions of both the California Energy Code and CAlGreen.
The California Green Buildings Standards Code (CAlGreen) establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CAlGreen was developed to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to environmental directives. The most recent update to CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2019 and covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.
The Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the new California Building Code requirements. This mandate will further ensure that unnecessary wastefulness of energy resources is limited. 31 I P a ~ e75
As noted previously, the Proposed Project only conSists of annexation and prezoning of the Project Site.
Physical construction is not anticipated at this time. At such time the City receives applications for specific development projects within the Project Site, said projects will require a detailed analysis in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. Therefore, at this time the Proposed Project would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
32 I P <; g e
76 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Signlflcllnt wIth Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, induding the risk of X I
I
loss, injury, or death involving: I
! I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
I
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the i
I
State Geologist for the area or based on X !
other substantial evidence of a known fault? I
I (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology I I Special Publication 42. j iI) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv} Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
top soil? X
I
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is I
unstable or that would become unstable as it
result of the project, and potentially result in on· X
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
J
!
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table lB-l-B of the Uniform Building Code
x (1944), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting I
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater X I
disposal systems where sewer!. are not available
I for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly 01 Indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique X I
geologic feature? I
33 I P'l e ~
77 ANALVSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MNO
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to geology and soils were primarily less than significant. Impacts to the potential of landslides and Soils incapable of accommodating the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Pages 15 and 16 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk Of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture 0/ a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Mop issued by the State Geologist for the area or bosed on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv, Landslides?
No known earthquake faults are located on the Project Site. According to the City's 2030 General Plan, there are two (2) known earthquake faults near the City of Los Banos; the Calaveras and the Ortigalita faults which are both located near Interstate 5. The Los Banos General Plan has poliCies such as $-1-8 that require new and existing development to conform to existing state and federal regulations. With the General Plan policies set in place, the potentially significant impact is feduced to a Less Than Significant Impact.
b, Would the project result in substantia/soil erosion or the foss of topsoil? The potential for grading and earthmoving during project construction to result in erosion is a potentially significant impact. According to the City's 2030 General Plan EIR, the Project Site has the susceptibility to erosion rFigure 3.6-2) and is considered a "high" risk. However, compliance and Implementation of the following 2030 General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
Policy S-G-1
Implementing Action 5-1-1
Implementing Action 5-/-2
34 I p {-j g e
Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by seismic hazards, soil hazards, and erosion.
Review proposed development sites at the earliest stage of the planning process to locate any potential geologic or seismic hazard.
Facilitate greater safety provisions for important or critical-use structures {such as hospitals, schools, fire, police, and public assembly facilities; 78 Implementing Action S-I-4
Implementing Action 5-1-5
Implementing Action S-I-6
Implementing Action S-I-8
substations and utilities) through input during site selection and a comprehensive geotechnical investigation.
Require utilities be designed to withstand probable seismic forces to be encountered in Los Banos.
Require preparation of a soils report as part of the development review and/or building permit process.
Control erosion of graded areas with revegetation or other acceptable methods.
Require that alterations to existing buildings and all new buildings be built according to the seismic requirements oftlle Uniform Building Code.
The Proposed Project includes the Annexation and Pre-Zoning of 28.5-acres into industrial uses and will be required to adhere to these Policies and Implementation Actions at the time future development occurs within the Project Site, particularly Implementation Action 5-1-5. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as D result oj the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
As discussed above, the Project Site is relatively flat in topography and historically was used for agricultural purposes (row cops). The Project Site does not contain any unique geologic feature and will not directly or indirectly impact a unique geologic feature. According to the City's 2030 General Plan fiR, "no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Merced County and the probobility 0/ soillique/action actually taking place within the Planning Area is considered to be a low to moderate hazard. However, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide./I Conformity to the above Policies and Implementation Actions would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1944), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The existing terrain is relatively flat and is not conducive to land slippage. In addition, the site is not shown on published landslide maps; therefore, there is No Impact. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available jor the disposal of wastewater? 3S I P ol ~ e
79 The Proposed Project will be required to connect to City services, including wastewater upon future development. The Proposed Project will not utilize the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, the Proposed Project will have No Impact. f Would the project directly or indirectly destroy 0 unique paleontolog;cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
According to the City's 2030 General Plan EIR, "Archival research indicates that most prehistoric settlement in the area was focused along the Los Banos Creek watershed. Evidence from previous survey activities and site investigations of the Planning Area indicate most prehistoric sites would consist of the following:
bedrock milling stations, lithicflakes, and projectile points. Archeological resources and/or human remains could be damaged or inadvertently unearthed during ground-disturbance activities SlJch as grading, trenChing, or use of staging areas."
The los Banos Creek Archaeological District (los Banos Creek Watershed area) is located 2.36 miles to the west of the Project Site. The Project Site is not in an area considered to be archaeologically sensitive, as indicated in the City's General Plan EIR (Figure 3.12-1). Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Signiflcant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
36 I P ag e
80 B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Signl/lCllnt with Slgnlficont Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X
I the emissions of greenhouse gases?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that impacts to greenhouse gas emissions were less than significant. (Refer to Page 17 of Attachment A).
SmING:
Human-generated emissions greenhouse gases (GHGs) are understood to be an important cause of global climate change, which is a subject of increasing scientific, public concern, and government action.
Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and lead to a variety of effects, including increasing temperature, changes in patterns and intensity of weather and various secondary effects resulting from those changes, including potential effects on public health and safety.
California AB 32 identifies global climate change as a "serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and the environment of California." As a result, global climate change is an issue that needs to be considered under CEQA.
GHGs include carbon dioxide (C02), the most abundant GHG, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases, each of which have GHG potential that is several times that of C02. GHG emissions result from combustion of carbon-based fuels; major GHG sources in California include transportation (40.7%), electric power generation (20.5%), industrial (20.5%), agriculture and forestry (8.3%) and others (8.3%).
The State of California is actively engaged in developing and implementing strategies for reducing GHG emissions. State programs for GHG reduction include a regional cap·and-trade program, new industrial and emission control technologies, alternative energy generation technologies, advanced energy conservation in lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation, reduced-carbon fuels, hybrid and electric vehicles, and other methods of improving vehicle mileage reduction programs. Using these and other strategies, the State's Global Climate Change Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2008, proposes to achieve a 29% reduction in projected business-as-usual emission levels for 2020. 37 I P age
81 The City of los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR includes policies and mitigation meaSUfes that reduce the impact level that is less than significant. Policies POSR-I-46, 52, 53, and C-I-4 of the City's 2030 General Plan include measures, that upon implementation, help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated per capita in the City.
The $JVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of Best Performance Standards to reduce GHG emissions. Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing Best Performance Standards, demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact.
REGULATORY SETTING
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state's GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below:
Assembly Bill 1943
Assembly Bill (AB) 1943 (2002), California's Advanced Clean Cars program (Referred to as "Pavley"), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve "the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG em issions from motor vehicles." On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now (Referred to as "LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG" will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016.
The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the low Emission Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 7S percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.
Executive Order 5-3-05
In 2005, the governor issued Executive Order (EO) $-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO 5-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (California Environmental Protection Agency [CaIEPA]). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the "2006 CAT Report") (CaIEPA 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO 5-3-05 are met and can be met with existing a uthority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane 38 I p ~ g e
82 capture, etc. In April 2015 the governor issued EO B-30-15, calling for a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Assembly Bill 32
California's major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.
California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020, as established by AB 32.
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (S8) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CfQAl documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.
CARB Resolutiofl 07-54
CARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 MT of GHG emissions as the th reshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005 percent of California's total inventory of GHG emissions for 2004.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (58) 375, signed into law in September 2008, builds on AS 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035; these regional targets will help achieve the goals of AS 32 and the Scoping Plan through changed land use patterns and improved transportation systems. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ASAG) adopted a Sustainable Community Strategies in July 2013 that meets greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Plan Bay Area is the SCS document for the Bay Area, which is an integrated long-range plan that discusses climate protection, housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic Vitality, and transportation system effectiveness within the San Francisco Bay Area. The document is updated every four years and most recently, the update, Plan Boy Area 2040 was adopted on July 26, 2017.
Executive Order 5-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that "climate change in California during the ne)(t century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California's economy, to the health and welfare of tis population and to its natural 39 I P ;) g E?
83 resources." Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the [' .. .first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaption strategy in the United States." Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and'specifying a direction for future research.
Senate Bill 2X
In April 2011, the governor signed SB2X requiring California to generate 33 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020.
Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (5B 32) into law, which requires the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 is an extension of AS 32 . The other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged. CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update on December 14,2017 for achieving California's 2030 greenhouse gas target.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs, contributing to global climate change could be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would contribute to the increase of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Emissions of GHG attributed to future development would be primarily associated with increases in C02 and other GHG pollutants, including CH4 and N20, from mobile sources and utility usage. It should be noted that construction-related GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change, as global climate change is inherently a cumulative effect that occurs over a long period ohime.
As stated previously, short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of the Proposed Project.
Construction GHG emissions from the Proposed Project do not impede local GHG reduction efforts, or violate GHG reduction goals set by AS 32, as required by Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3-1 requires the Project Applicant to coordinate with SJVAPCD as it relates to the requirements of District Rule 9510, which is intended to reduce construction related 40 I P a g ~
84 emissions. Therefore, cumulatively these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change.
With the implementation of the following Mitigation Measure and the Mitigation Measures presented in Section 3: Air Quality, the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be reduced by 31.3 percent relative to the BAU scenario, consistent with applicable standards and thresholds of a 29 percent reduction. Because the Proposed Project would meet the 29 percent minimum reduction threshold, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction percentage sought by the State's Seoping Plan.
In addition, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with recognition that energy efficient buildings require less electricity and reduce fuel consumption, which in turn decreases GHG emissions. The current Title 24 standards were adopted in response to the requirements of AB 32.
Specifically, new development projects within California, after January 1, 2011, are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change would be considered Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-l, described below.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into future development of the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure GHG-l:
Along with the Mitigation Measure contained in Section 3: Air Quality, the Project Applicant shall institute the following mitigation measure during future construction and operation of any specific development project within the Proposed Project area to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption. • Increase transit accessibility in the Project Area by eT'lSuring a minimum distance of 0.1 miles to transit stops.
• Ensure that the pedestrian network within the Project Area connects to offsite pedestrian networks.
• Exceed Title 24 by 15% through verified compliance with CALGreen Tier 1 efficiency requirements. • Install high efficiency lighting and appliances within all units and commercial buildings. • Instal/low-flow faucets, toilets. and showers as applicable. • Use water-efficient irrigation systems throughout the Plan Area. 41 I P :'1 g (:
85 9. HAZARDSANO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- WOUU> THE PROJEer:
Less Than
Potentiolly Sillnlficont Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Mit/gotion Impact Impact
Incorporation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, I )(
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident condi~ions involving the l<
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
I
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous I I I or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or I X I ' waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or I proposed school? !
I
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 X
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
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 I I X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
I I for people residing or working in the project area? .1 j I ,
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere I
with an adopted emergency response plan or X I emergency evacuation plan? I i
,
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or I
I I I
/ Indirectlv, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or I I I
x
I death involving wildland fires?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/M NO) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were primarily less than significant. However, the City determined that impacts to the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school 42 I P n g e
86 were less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The City adopted Mitigation Measure No.1 to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. (Refer to Pages 18 and 19 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANAlVSIS
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, ar disposal of hazardous materials?
The Project Site is surrounded by existing urban uses on the north, east, and west. The Proposed Project consists of an Annexation and Pre-Zone. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Project will include the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the future industrial land uses will be required to adhere to the City's 2030 General Plan, City Ordinances and Policies and Implementation Actions as it relates the handling and transportation of hazardous materials. Such Policies and Implementation Actions include the following:
Policy S-G-4 Protect Los Banos' ecology and residents from harm resulting from the improper production, use, storage, disposal, or transportation of hazardous materials.
Implementing Action 5-1-19 Apply provisions of the Merced County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to deCisions involving hazardous materials in Los Banos, as appropriate.
Implementing Action 5-1-20 Discourage the placement or expansion of businesses producing, utilizing or storing hazardous materials within a quarter mile of schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. If the placement or expansion of such facilities is not feasible, effective mitigation measures will be implemented.
Implementing Action 5-1-21 Ensure that any proposed new development on identified or suspected hazardous materials sites address hazardous materials through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies for each individual site as part of the design phase for each project.
The Project Site has historically been utilized for agricultural purposes, and as such, there may be hazardous materials within the soil. Therefore, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit or to remove any structures on the Project Site or issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant and/or Project Proponent shall prepare and submit to the City a Phase I/Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with General Plan Implementation Action 5-1-21. The recommendations of the Phase I/ESA shall be incorporated into the subsequent Proposed Project, as necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. 87 b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the pub!;c or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and occident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Development of the Proposed Project area will comply with all federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to the construction ofthe Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of on existing or proposed school? The Proposed Project is located approximately 0.31 miles Lorena Falasco Elementary School School.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a Jist 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?
Appendix A of the City's 2030 General Plan provides a list of hazardous sites within the City of Los Banos.
Based on a review of Appendix A, the Proposed Project is not located on a site identified as hazardous.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (e) and (f):
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?
f. Would the project impair implementation Of or physically inter/ere with on adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Los Banos Municipal Airport is located within the City of Los Banos. The Los Banos Municipal Airport is a general aviation facility with a single paved runway 3,800 feet in length. According to the Merced County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted June 21, 2012, the Proposed Project is located outside of the airport's "Airport Influence Area." Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of any documented or known private airstrips.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
g. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury- or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are {Jdjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
44 I P ( I g e
88 The Proposed Project is located within a pocket of an urban area and is surrounded by existing City of los Banos development on the south, east, and west sides. As such, no wild lands exist within or adjacent to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-l:
Prior to the approval of any development on the Project Site, the Community and Economic Development Director shall review the specific use proposed within this annexation boundary. Proposed uses that include the handling of ha2ardous materials would be required to prepare a health risk assessment to evaluate the health risks associated with that type of use within one-quarter mile of a school. Proposed uses shall be reviewed for compatibility with schools in the immediate vicinity, and those that are determined to be incompatible, shall not be allowed.
45 I P r! G e
89 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge soch that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
r basin? !
~ Substantially alter the existing drainage I
pattern of the site or area, including through the
I
I
alteration of the course of a stream or river or I
through the addition of Impervious surfaces, in a .
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion
or siltation;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which I,
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
po II u ted runo ff ; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk I I release of pollutants due to project inundation? i ~ el Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a I water quality control plan or groundwater management plan?
sustainable I
46 I P ,l l" ~
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant with
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
, I
Less Than No Significant Impact I Impact
I
I
X I
I I
I I
I
I
X
I , I
X
x
x
X
X I
i
X
I
l
I X I
I
I
I I
I
I
90 ANAlVSIS FROM PREVIOUS ISjMND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that impacts to hydrology and water quality were primarily less than significant. (Refer to Pages 20 and 21 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (e):
o. Would the project violate any water quality standards Dr waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 0/ the site or area, including through the afteration of the course of a stream Of river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in C1 manner which would:
i. Result in substantial on- Of offsite erosion or siltation; ii. Subs ton tia"y increase the rate or amount of sUrface runoff in Q manner which would result in ffooding on- or of/site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources 0/ polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The Proposed Project is 28.5 acres in size and the topography is relatively flat. The Project Site is located
15.87 miles west of the San Joaquin River. According to the City's 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City of Los Banos is located in the Delta-Mendota Groundwater Basin of the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region .
The Project Site is not located in a flood hazard 20ne (Le. a lOO-year flood zone) as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06047C0850G. The construction of the site improvements (i.e. construction of roads, infrastructure, etc.) will reduce absorption rates and increase surface water runoff. Final storm drainage designs will be required to comply with City standards and will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for future development of the Proposed Project Site. Any increased runoff shall be mitigated as required by the Public Works Department. The improvement plans for stormwater will be required to adhere to the City's Storm Water Management Plan .
The Proposed Project requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBt and compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project shall incorporate Low Impact Development Standards (LID) design parameters, as well as include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum e)(tent feasible . 47 I fJ ~1 t' ~
91 Compliance with the applicable City ordinances and 2030 General Plan requirements for construction activities would ensure that construction of the Proposed Project does not result in significant impacts to water quality and does not result in a violation of any water quality standards. Therefore, with the compliance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, BMPs, and the City's regulatory policies pertaining to stormwater runoff, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management oj the basin?
According to the City's 2030 General Plan, the project area is identified as being designated for development of Industrial uses. According to Section 8.2 of the City's 2030 General Plan, "the 2008 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that this suppfy is sufficient to meet dty needs through 2030./1 According to the City's 2030 General Plan fiR, the City's water supply is drawn from thirteen (13) wells located throughout the Los Banos Planning Area. The per capita consumption rate is equal to the City's average day demand (ADD) divided by its population. According to the City'S Water Master Plan, dated March 2010, between 2000 and 2007, the average per capita demand ranged between 161 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 240 gpcd, and averaged 210 gpcd, based on metered water deliveries. The Water Master Plan includes water system improvements through the year 2031 that ensure that adequate water supply is provided to the City as it grows in population.
As previously noted, the Project Site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area. The Proposed Project will increase the water demand, as the Proposed Project is required to connect to City services once annexed, including potable water. However, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project will substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
The Developer and/or Project Proponent is required to install the water system to serve the industrial development per City Standards and pay applicable Public Facility Fees for the expansion of the water system, as necessary. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. Would the project In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones) risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Proposed Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, a floodway or otherwise placed in an area that would interfere with flood flows. The Project Site is located lS.B7 miles west of the San Joaquin River and 4.5 miles from the 100-year flood boundary (located at the Los Banos Wildlife Area to the north).
The Proposed Project Site is located within the Planning Area as it is defined in the 2030 General Plan.
According to Section 7.2 of the City's 2030 General Plan, "three dams close to Los Banos have the potential of inundating portions or the whole oj the Planning Area. Flood zone mopping by the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers indicates that all of the Planning Area is located within the San Luis Reservoir dam inundation area. Northern portions of the Planning Area are alsD located within the Los Banos Detention Reservoir 92 ond the Little Panoche Reservoir Dam inundation area. II All three dams are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and are inspected regularly for their structural integrity. In response to the potential of inundation by a result of dam failure, the City has adopted General Plan policies, which include coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on potentia I flooding risks, and ensuring that City staff and Emergency Response Services are trained to respond to catastrophic dam failure. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
No enclosed surface water bodies, which might be subject to potential seiches, are located in the Project Site vicinity. Based on its location, inland from coastal areas, the Project Site would not be subject to tsunami effects. The Project Site is not located in an area susceptible to mudflows. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management pIon?
The Proposed Project will connect to the City of Los Banos domestic water system once annexed and developed and does not include the development of any new wells. The Proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control or sustainability groundwater management plan. The Project Developer will be required to pay Public Facility Fees and those fees will be used to improve the water system per the City's 2030 General Plan and the Water Master Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
There are no mitigation measures for this topic.
93 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Signf/icClnt Less Than No Significant with Significant ImPDct Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation
a) Physically divide an established community? X
! b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
! to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or X I
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
1 I or mitigating an environmental effect?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS JS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that the Proposed Project would have no impact to land use and planning. (Refer to Page 22 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALVSIS
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? b. Would the project couse a significant environmental impact due to 0 conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of woiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Proposed Project is located immediately adjacent to the city limits of the City of Los Banos to the east, west, and south, and is also located within the City's adopted Sphere of Influence (SOl). The City of Los Banos is an established community in Merced County. However, the Proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and has been previously considered for annexation and future development under the Policies of the City's General Plan. Impacts to Land Use and Planning as a result of the Proposed Project have not changed from what was previously determined in 2014. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
50 I p ,: g t"
94 12. MINERAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Less Than
Potentially Signl/lcant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral reSource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
ANALYSIS fROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that the Proposed Project would have no impact to mineral resources. (Refer to Page 23 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of 0 locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Section 5.6 of the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan dated July 15, 2009, states, "according to the Deportment of Conservation: Mines and Geology, there are no known significant mineral resources located within the Planning Area. The Planning Area contains ports of San Luis Ranch alluvium and Modesto alluvium, known mineral occurrences oj underdetermined mineral resources Significance. According to the State Office oj Mine Reclamation, sand and gravel is currently mined within portions of the Los Banos Creek Fan, located southwest of the Planning Area. Although further exploration of the Planning Area could result in the ree/assification of specific localities, no mineral resources have been historically exploited or are being currently exploited commercially within the Planning Area. II The Proposed Project is located within the Planning Area as it is defined in the 2030 General Plan and is consistent with "urban" land uses prescribed by the General Plan . Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
Sl I P ;) g e
95 13. NOISE -- WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent Increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards X established in the local general plan or noise I ordinance, or in other applicable standards of I
I I
other agencies? I
I i I
1 b) Generation 01 excessive ground borne I X vibration or groundbome noise levels? I , j 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, X I would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise I I I
levels? I ! I I I j I
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS JS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to noise were primarily less than significant. (Refer to Pages 24 and 2S of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project result in the 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 locol general plan or noise ordinonce, or in other applicable standards of other agencies? b. Would the project result in the Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the viCinity of a private airstrip or on airport land use pion or, where such a plan has not been odopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people resid;ng or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Proposed project itself will not reSUlt in any noise impacts, either temporary or permanent, as no new development or construction is proposed at this time. However, at the time the City receives an application for any development project within the Proposed Project area, the Applicant and/or Project Proponent will need to comply with General Plan Policies, including Implementation Action N-I-2, as the 52 I P age
96 Proposed Project area is located immediately to existing residential developme nt. Implementation Action N-I-2 states as follows:
Implementation Action N-I-2 Require a noise study and mitigation measures for all projects that have noise exposure greater than "normally acceptable" levels based on specific criteria and standards in the Zoning Ordinance. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
• Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment; • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Retail fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and, • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
During eventual construction of any specific development project within the Proposed Project area, ground borne vibration and/or groundborne noise levels are likely to increase, albeit temporarily.
Compliance with General Plan Policy Implementation Actions N-I-2 and N-I-7 will be required of any development project within the Proposed Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
S3 I P .1 (! e
97 14. POPULA TION AND HOUSING _. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant ImpCIct Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporatian
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing , new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X example, through extension of roads or other
-4 I I
infrastructure)? ,
I
/. I
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
I people or housing, necessitating the I X
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? I p g
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MNO
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that impacts to population and housing were primarily less than significant. Potential impacts to displacement as a result of the Proposed Project were determined to have no impact. (Refer to Page 26 of Attachment A).
Impact Analysis
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
a. Would the project induce substantial population in one areo~ either directly (lor example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or Indirectly (for example, through extension 01 roods or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction 01 replacement housing elsewhere?
AS discussed in the Project Description, the existing 2030 General Plan land use designation for the Proposed Project Site is Industrial. The Proposed Project consists of the Annexation of the site into the City of los Banos and a Pre-Zoning of the site to Industrial which is consistent to the City's Land Use Designation of the site, Industrial. The Proposed Project consists of the Annexation of the Proposed Project Site into the City of los Banos, and the Pre-Zoning of the site to Industrial. This will support the future development into the site for industria I uses. The Proposed Project Site is actively farmed with row crops and no structures exist on the property. There will be no displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project Site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and Planning Area and is deSignated for industrial land uses. Furthermore, the Project Site is adjacent to the city limits on three (3) sides: south, east, and west. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
54 I P Ii g e
98 MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
55 I P i'I g e
99 15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Less Than
Potentially Slgnlpcant Less Than
No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation
a) Would the project result In substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental fadlities.
or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service i
ratios, response times, or other performance , I
obiectives for any of the public services:
J a) Fire protection? x
b) Police protection? x
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? x
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that impacts to Public Services were less than significant. (Refer to Page 27 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
o. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision oj new or physically altered governmental jacilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental focilities, the construction oj which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives jor jire protection? Fire protection is provided by the City of los Banos via the Los Banos Fire Department. To off-set any potential impacts to Fire services as a result of the new development, the Proposed Project will be required to pay the appropriate Capital Facilities Fees at the time development occurs and/or a Building Permit is issued. According to the 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Los Banos Fire Department responds to structural and wildland fires, emergency medical service, and hazardous/toxic material spills in the Planning Area. Fire dispatch is handled through the Los Banos Police Department. The Department operates two (2) fire stations, Station 1 and Station 2, within the city limits 561 P age
100
and currently comprises a total of nineteen (19) full-time staff members and thirty-two (32) certified volunteers with the majority of the staffing concentrated at Station 1. The Stations are located at the following:
• Station 1- 333 7th Street; and
• Station 2 - 1150 West I Street.
Currently, the Department has an Insurance Service Office's (ISO) rating of 3, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the highest. City policy establishes a five (5) to six (6) minute response standard for fire service within a 1 }S mile radius.
The City's 2030 General Plan includes Policies and Implementation Actions that support the Department's continued provision of adequate facilities, staffing levels and to accommodate new development, such as the Proposed Project. The Polices and Implementation Actions applicable to the Proposed Project are as follows:
Policy LU-G-l
Implementing Action LU-I-8
Ensure that new development provides for infrastructure, schools, parks, neighborhood shops, and community facilities in close proximity to residents.
Require new development to pay its proportionate share of the costs of public infrastructure, services, and transportation facilities. This shall include parks, fire and police stations, schools, utilities, roads, and other needed infrastructure.
Implement1ng Action LU-I-S3 Designate land for civic and institutional land uses, to be maintained through capital projects, for parks and open spaces, police and fire services, water and sanitary facilities, infrastructure, and other City services.
The Proposed Project is required to adhere to the City's 2030 General Plan Policies and Implementation Actions, Municipal Code, California Building and Fire Codes. Although the Project Site is currently served by the Fire Department (as the site is within the Planning Area) for fire protection and emergency medical response services, annexation into the City and development of the Proposed Project will require the payment of Capital Facilities Fees to fund the construction of fire protection facilities required to service new growth areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physico} impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental/acilities, or the need for new or physicoJ/y altered governmental facilities, the construction a/which could couse significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other per/ormance objectives for pOlice protection? 57 I P ." r- e
101
law enforcement services in the City are provided by the City of Los Banos Police Department.
Additionally, the California Highway Patrol and the Merced County Sheriff have cooperative agreements with the Los Banos Police Department and provide law enforcement services in the Planning Area. The Police Department currently consists of two (2) buildings located in downtown Los Banos. The main Police Department building at the corner of J Street and 5th Street (945 5th Street) was built in 1969 and the Police Department annex on J Street was built in 1999 (535 J Street).
In 2018, the City approved a new 35,000 sq. ft. Police Station located at 111 G Street. The site is about
3.6 acres and was formally developed with a warehouse and is adjacent to the Los Banos Rail Trail, formerly the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Company Right-of-Way Corridor.
As of 2019, the Police Department covers an area of approximately ten (10) square miles and employs forty-one (41) sworn Police Officers and twenty-nine (29) non-sworn staff. With a population of 41,898 (2019), the City's forty-one (41) sworn Police Officers equates to a police officer staffing of 0.98 offers per 1,000 residents. To offset any potential impacts to police services as a result of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project will be required to pay applicable Capital Facilities Fees associated with services and facilities. In addition, as a Condition of Approval for the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project will be required to annex into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2002-01 (Public Safety Services), which is an annual tax assessed to the Proposed Project for police and fire protection services. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. c. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically aftered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rotios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools? Projects consisting of industrial type development do not typically generate additional students.
However, in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) SO, the Los Banos Unified School District charges development impact fees to offset the cumulative cost.s of providing additional school facilities once such facilities are required. Los Banos Unified School District provides educational facilities and services to students that would be generated by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is required to pay school impact fees consistent with state law. The Proposed Project will be required to comply with $8 SO and pay the applicable school impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permit. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact. d. 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 parks? The Proposed Project consists of the annexation and pre-zone of industrial lands within the City of Los Banos. Industrial related projects typically do not result in impacts to existing or future park facilities, and 58 I p (i g e
102
as noted previously, no specific development is proposed at this time. As such specific development within the Proposed Project area will occur, the Applicant and/or Project Proponent will be required to pay the applicable impact fees related to parks at the time of building permit issuance. Payment of said impact fee is considered to mitigate any potential impacts to park facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
e. 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 /acifities, the construction 0/ which could couse significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of other public services?
The City provides public facilities and services through various funding sources, including payment of project Capital Facilities Fees. Although the Proposed Project will increase the need for additional public services, payment of applicable Capital Facilities Fees at the time of building permit issuance will offset any potential impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for thiS topiC.
59 I P (J g e
103
1.6. RECREATION
! Less Thtln
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Import Impact
Incorportlf/on
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial X
I physical deterioration of the facility would occur I I [ or be accelerated? , r i
b) Does the project include recreational facilities 1
or require the construction or expansion of X ! I recreational facilities which might have an I adverse physical effect on the environment? ! I I I I -. ,
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on Decem ber 3, 2014 determined that impacts to Recreation were considered to have no impact. (Refer to Page 9 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALVSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
o. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regionaJ parks or other recreational facilities such thor substantial physical deterioration 0/ the facility would occur or accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion 0/ recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As noted previously, the Proposed Project conSists of the annexation and pre-zone of industrial lands in the City of Los Banos. Industrial related development projects do not typically increase the use of existing park facilities, nor do they necessitate the need for additional park facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
60 I P <If; e
104
27. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Less Than
Potentially SIgnificant Less Thein No Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
I policy addressing the circulation system, X including transit, roadway, bicyde, and pedestrian facilities?
l
bl Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA X Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? i I
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or I
X I
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses I
t
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
ANALVSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3,2014 determined that impacts to Transportation/Traffic were less than significant. (Refer to Pages 29 and 30 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a) and (b):
o. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addreSsing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CfQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves Of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,/arm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in the 2014 IS/MND, the City's 2030 General Plan Circulation Element provides the Policies and Implementation Actions associated with traffic and transportation in the City of Los Banos. The 2030 General Plan requires the City adhere to a level of Service (LOS) C for street segments and LOS D for intersections. At present time, the City has not adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds but is in the process of doing so through the City's General Plan Update.
The Proposed Project does not result in any additional traffic impacts, as the Proposed Project consists of annexation and pre-zone only. However, at the time a specific development within the project area is proposed, the Applicant and/or Project Proponent will be required to comply with Implementation Action 61 I P age
105
C-I-l0, which requires all new development generating 100 vehicle trips or more to prepare and submit a traffic impact study. In addition, this traffic impact study will need to evaluate the project's vehicle miles traveled in comparison to the eventual thresholds adopted by the City of Los Banos.
The Proposed Project does not contain any design features that may result in traffic or transportation hazards. At such time a specific development project is proposed within the Proposed Project area, the City will require such project to comply with the adopted improvement standards to mitigate any potential for design features to result in hazards. In addition, any future development project within the Proposed Project area will be required to provide for adequate emergency access, typically by providing multiple points of access to and from the Project Site.
Based on the above, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
62 I P ag e
106
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- WOULD THE PROlEa-:
Potentially
Signlflcont
Impact
Less TlKtn
Significant
wIth
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Signl/lumt
Imptlct
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as eithe( 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:
i) 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 sectlon 5020.1 (k)?
ii) 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?
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
x
x
Tribal Cultural Resources was not a required environmental topic at the time the 2014 IS/MND was prepared and adopted by the City of Los Banos.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Would the project couse a significant adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, culturo/landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to 0 Cali/ornia Notive American tribe, and thot is:
63 I P ? g e
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a locol register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k)?
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be Significant pursuont to criteria set forth in subdivision (e) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the read agency shaJl consider the Significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
107
According to the City's 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City of Los Banos (itself), Pacheco Pass, and the Canal Farm Inn are listed as California Historic Landmarks. The Los Banos Bank Building (aka: Old Bank Building), the Church of St. Joseph, and the San Luis Gonzaga Archeological District are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. None of these sites surveyed as part of the General Plan EIR are on or within the general vicinity of the current Project Site. In addition, the Project Site is not listed or eligible for listing in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section S020.1(k). As such, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
According to the City's 2030 General Plan fIR, a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) during the General Plan update (2005) to conduct a search of their sacred lands database to determine if any Native American cultural resources are present in or in the vicinity of the Planning Area.
The NAHC response letter stated that the sacred lands database did not indicate the presence of Native American resources in the General Plan Planning Area. This Planning Area includes the Proposed Project Site. In addition, letters requesting consultation regarding the Proposed Project were sent to interested Native American tribes onJuly 24,2020. No response was received within the 30-day consultation request timeframe.
In addition, the City of Los Banos requested a list from the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of potentially interested tribes, on July 24, 2020. Four (4) tribes were identified on the list and consultation letters were sent out to each tribe on July 24,2020. The City of Los Banos did not receive any responses from said tribes throughout the 30-day consultation period. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
64 I P i3 g e
108
19. UTll.ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- WOULD THE PROJECT:
Less Than
Potentially SIgnificant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
a) Require or reSUlt in the relocation or
construction of construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable X future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X
project's projected demand, in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local X I nfrastrocture, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with Federal. State, and local
management and reduction statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
ANALVSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that im pacts to Utilities and Service Systems less than significant. (Refer to Pages 31 and 32 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALVSIS
o. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of construction oj new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwoter drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could couse significant environmental effects?
65 J P age109
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies ovaflable to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand} in addition to the providers existing commitments?
Wastewater services within the City are provided by the City of Los Banos, Public Works Department. The City's most recently adopted Wastewater Master Plan describes the City's wastewater capacity as 6.1 million gallons per day ("mgd"). Current flows through the City's wastewater system are approximately
3.5 mgd, leaving the City with current wastewater capacity of over 2.5 mgd.
The City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has a combination of current capacity and future expansion capacity to serve the future needs of the entire buildout of the City's General Plan area, which includes the Project Site. Furthermore, according to City Public Works staff, the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate any wastewater needs and will not exceed any treatment requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
At the time specific development is proposed within the Proposed Project area, the Applicant and/or Project Proponent will need to provide for adequate on-site stormwater retention, either through the installation of an on-site French drain system or a combination of bio-swales. All future development including the design and installation of the proposal's storm drainage system will be done in accordance with the City's Drainage Design Manual. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
Potable water services within the City are provided by the City of Los Banos, Public Works Department Water Services. The City is located within the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (groundwater basin) and extracts its water supply from groundwater aquifers via a series of thirteen (13) municipal water wells with most of the wells concentrated in the southwest area of the City. In addition to the thirteen (13) water wells, the City also has an elevated storage tank with a capacity of 100,000 gallons, and a 5 million gallon surface mounted storage tank equipped with four (4) booster pumps, which are utilized to pump additional water during high demand periods. City water users total approximately 12,730 connections, split between residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. According to the City's Water Master Plan (20ll), it is anticipated that the City has sufficient groundwater supply to provide potable water services to meet the expected future demands based on the buildout assumptions made in the 2030 General Plan.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Signlflcant Impact.
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (d) and (e):
d. Would the project 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? e. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
66 I P <\ g e
110
Solid waste in the City of Los Banos is managed by the Merced County Association of Governments. The majority of the City's solid waste is taken to Billy Wright Landfill and additional waste is taken to Highway 59 landfill. The City's 2030 General Plan EIR determined that there are sufficient options for expansion or relocation of services to meet the demand created by future growth in the City of Los Banos. As noted previously, the Proposed Project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan, and as a result, consistent with the determinations made in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact.
The Proposed Project will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less Than Significant Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
67 I P a !; e
111
20. WILDFIRE -- Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Slgnijimnt Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact ImpQct Mit/gation Impact IncoqN>ratlon
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: i I I
r
I a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency !
I
I
I response plan or emergency evacuation plan? I
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant X
concentrations from a wildfire or the
I uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? I
c) Require the installation or maintenance
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or X other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to Significant risks,
j induding downslope or downstream flooding or X i I landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope I I instability, or drainage changes? I ,
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 did not consider Wildfire impacts associated with the Proposed Project, as Wildfire was not a topic identrfied in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2014.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion is an analysis for criteria (a), (b), (c), and {d}:
o. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Would the project 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?
68 I Pap. e
112
c. Would the project 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? d. Would the project 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? According to the City's 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), eighty-four (84) percent of the planning area is thought to possess little or no wildfire risk. The riparian corridor to the west of Los Banos Creek represents the largest single risk due to the amount of tree cover and undergrowth. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of the Los Banos Creek area. In addition, according to the California Public Utilities Commission Fire-Threat Map, prepared in accordance with the requirements of decision D.17-01-009, the Project Site is not within an area cons·idered to be a high-risk fire-threat area (Tier 2 and Tier 3). Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Mitigation is not required for this topic.
69 I P ;., e
113
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE~-
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitlgtlt;on Impact Incorporation
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment. substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish Dr wildlife species,
cause it fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a X 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? I -
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited. but cumulatively
considera bl e ? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project X
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)?
c) Does the project have envi(onmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on X I
human beings. either directly or indirectly? I I f
I I I
ANALYSIS FROM PREVIOUS tS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Proposed Project and adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2014 determined that the Proposed Projects Mandatory Findings of Significant were less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts to hazardous materials were identified as potentially significant, and therefore, mitigation measures were incorporated into the Proposed Project to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. (Refer to Page 33 of Attachment A).
IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, couse a j;sh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plont or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 70 I P il g e
114
Finding (a) is checked as "less Than Significant Impact" on the basis of the Proposed Project's potential impacts on biological resources, as described in Section 3.0-IV of this Initial Study. The analysis contained in this Initial Study determined the impact to Biological Resources was less Than Significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incrementol effects of a project are considerable when viewed in the connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, ond the effects o[ probable future projects)?
As described in this Initial Study, the potential environmental effects 01 the Proposed Project will either be less than significant or will have no impact at all. Where the Proposed Project involves potentially Significant impacts, these impacts would have a Less Than Significant Impact with mitigation measures incorporated.
The potential environmental impacts identified in this Initial Study have been considered in conjunction with each other as to their potential to generate other potentially significant impacts. The various potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project will not combine to generate any potentially significant cumulative impacts.
The City of los Banos 2030 General Plan and fiR comprehensively account for ongoing and foreseeable urban development within the City's "Planning Area" and the cumulative environmental impacts of planned development. Future urban development in the City of Los Banos includes the provision of roads, utilities, schools, and recreational facHities needed to serve City residents and visitors as their demands for urban services increase over time.
The Proposed Project will contribute to planned urban development in the City of Los Banos, by annexing an area identified in the General Plan as being appropriate for residential uses. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project represent a portion of the environmental consequences of the planned growth and development permitted by the 2030 General Plan . The Proposed Project may involve a minor addition to the potential environmental impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR, but the Proposed Project will not result in any substantial contribution to any of the significant cumulative impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan fiR. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will couse substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The Proposed Project itself does not resu lt in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. However, at the time a specific development project is proposed within the Proposed Project area, impacts of said specific development project could be considered significant, especially to such environmental topics as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Traffic/Transportation. With the incorporation of various Mitigation Measures combined with compliance with 2030 General Plan Policies and Implementation Actions, these impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. The 71 I P t. g ('
115
City will determine the potential impact of any specific development project at such time a development application is submitted to Community Development Department staff for review and consideration.
Therefore, this impact will be less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. nlf' dt: e
116
REFERENCES
In accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following expert opinion, technical studies, and substantial evidence has been (Referenced and/or cited In the discussion included in the Initial Study Checklist:
City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan, dated July 2009.
City of Los Banos 2014-2023 Housing Element, dated July 2016.
City of Los Banos General Plan Land Resources Amendment, Adopted September 6,2017 per City Covncil Resoluflon No. 5890.
City of Los Banos General Plan Land Resources Amendment SEIR, dated April 28, 2017, prepared by fMC Planning Group, Inc.
City of los Banos Zoning Ordinance.
City of Los Banos Noise Control Ordinance, Article 27.
City of Los Banos Water Plan, dated March 2010.
City ofLos Banos Municipal Service Review, dated March 22, 2012.
Merced County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted June 21, 2012, prepared by the Merced County Airport Land Use Commission.
City of Los Banos Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for AMG Annexation 112013-01, dated August 29,2014.
California Department of Transportation Online Database of State Scenic Highways (www.dot.ca.gov/hq!landArch!scenic/cahisys.htm).
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, published October 2007.
Guide for AsseSSing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, adopted March 19, 2015, by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Guidance for Valley Land-use Agenc'les in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New PrOjects under CEQA, dated December 17,2009, prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 73 I P a {; e
117
Appendix A
los Banos City Council Resolution No. 5628
74 I P rl bE:
118
) j
. . '
RESOLUTION NO. 5628
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE
CITY OF lOS BANOS APPROVING MITAGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2014091056)
ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
WHEREAS, AMG & Associates, LLC Initiated consideration of an Annexation and Pre-Zone application for the property localed at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced CounlY, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007; and
WHEREAS, pUl'$Uant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, the project environmental Impacts were evaluated In an Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) InC9rporaled herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, no new sIgnificant information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result In new or greater significant effects not studied in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaratlon; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent was posted and the Mitigated Nega1ive Declaration was made Bliailable for public review on September 19, 2014 thru October 20,2014;and
WHEREAS, Annexation #2013-01 and Pre-Zone #2013-02 were found not to have a significant effect on the environment, and all Impacts were evaluated to be less than significant; Bnd
WHEREAS, sa.ld Annexatjon and Pre-Zone were reviewed and examIned by City of Los Banos staff; and
WHEREAS, Ihe Los Banos Planning CommiSSion held a public hearing on November 12, 2014 for the purpose of considering the project and at the completion of the public hearing, duly considered the eVidence presented and recommended approval to the Los Banos City Council: and
WHEREAS, 8 public hearing was duly noticed tor December 3, 2014, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65091 by advertisement In the Los Banos Enterprise and by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on November 21, 2014 to consider and take testimony regarding the AMG & Associates Anne)(atlon Project; and .
WHEREAS. at the December 3, 2014 meeting the Los Banos City Council hear/ and considered te:stimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard; reviewed Ihe project proposal and staff report; studied the compatibility of the applicant's request with adjacent land uses; has considered the applicant's request In accordance with the criteria established in Section 9-3.2314 of the Los Banos MunIcipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that toe City Council of the City of los Banos has reviewed the AMG & Associates Annexation and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056}, CEQA Findings (E)(hlbit A), aod MIl/galion Mon1torlng Program (Exhibit C), Incorporated hereIn by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, thai the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2014091056) for the AMG & AssocIates Annexation Project for the property lOcated at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number; 081-110-007.
-----------------._-_ .. _---_._.
119
) J
,
The foregoing Resolutlon was Introduced at 8 regular meeting of the CIty Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 3rd day of December 2014, by Council Member Lewis who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member Faria and too Resolutlon adopted by the following lIole:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ArrEST:
Council Members Faria, Lewis, Silveira, Stonegrove. Mayor Vlllaita None
None
APPROVED:
~-f,~
Lucille L Mallonee, City Clerk
120
EXHIBIT A
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS FOR ANNEXATION #2013-41 AND PRE.ZONE N2013-02 - AMG & ASSOCIATES Pursuant to the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21000 e1 seq. ("CEQA") and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City as Lead Agency under CEQA adopts the following flndings required by CEQA. along with the facts and evidence upon which each finding Is based.
The City of Los Banos City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines. and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, Annexation #2013·01 and Pre-Zone #2013-02 for AMG & Associates was evaluated in 8n Initial Study which determined that the project would not involve any signifIcant envlronmel'ltsl effects, provided that tho mil1gation measurea desenbed in the Initial Study were Implemented and a MItigated Negative Declaration (SCH#201.<\091056) was made.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequately noticed and circulated for public review. ihe City distributed the Notice of Intent with ooples of the Mitigated Negetive Declaration, and posted the Notice of Intent at the Merced County Clerk's office on September 19, 2014.
3. On the basiS of the whole record, including the Mitigated Nsga1lve Declaration and public comment, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment with proper mitigation.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Was prepared in compliance with CEQA and on the basis of the whole record, there Is no substantial evidence of slgnificaht new informatlon or changes In the environmental setting have occurred that would result (n new or greater significant effects not studied In the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declal'8tloo.
5. The City of Los Banos ~mmunlty and Economic Development Department, located al 520 J Street In los Banos, Is the custodian of the documents that constitute the record of proceedIngs upon which the determination to adopt the mitigated negative declaration Is based.
6. Upon approval of the projecl analyzed In the Mlligated Negative Declaration, the City of los Banos will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
--------------.----~-~----------- -----_ .. -.
121
....
)
7. Prior to considering the proposed Project. the City Council consIdered the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
122
EXHIBIT B
Initial StudylMitigal8d Negative D&claration
AMG Annexation #2013-01
August 29, 2014
I.ead Agency:
City of Los Banos
Community and Economic Developmenl Department
Contact: Stacy Souza Elms, Asslstanl Planner II
City Hall 520 J St.
los Banos, CA 93635
(209)827·7000 ext. 133
www.losbanos.org
123
- Purpose
The California EnvIronmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental effects of any agency actions that meet CEQA's definition of 8 "Project". Briefly summarized, a "Project" Is an action thai has the potential to result In dIrect or Indirect physical changes in the environment. A Pro/eot Includes the agency's direct activities 8S well as acl1vltles that Involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency's implementation of CEQA are found In the ·CEQA Guidelines· (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).
Provided that a Project Is not found to be exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency's evaluation of the potentlal envIronmental effects of the ProJeet is the preparation of an Initial Study. The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the Project would involve "slgnlfrcanr environmental effects as defined by CeOA and to describe feas/bla mitigation measures that would be necessary to avoid the significant effects or reduce them to a less than significant level. In the event that the InitIal Study does not Identify significant effects, or Identifies mitigation measures that would reduce all of the signlf1cant effects of the Project to a less than slgnlflcanllevel, the agency may prepare a Negative Declaration.
If thIs is not the case, the agency must prepare en Envlronmentsllmpact Report (ErR); the agency may al.so decide to proceed dJrectly with the preparation of an EIR wllhout preparation of an Inttlel Study.
The purpose of this Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration (ISJMND) Is to identify the potential environmental Impacts associated with the annexation of approximately 28,5 acres Into the City of Los Banos for Industrial development.
Pursuant to Section 16367 of the CEOA Guidelines, the City Is the Lead Agency In the preparation of Ihts ISlMND, and any additional enVironmental doctlmentafion required for the Project. The City has responsfbllity for approval or denial of the Project application. The Intended use of this document Is to provide Information to support conclusions regarding the potential environmental Impacts 0 the Project. The ISlMND provides the basis for Input from public agencIes, organizations, snd interested members of the public.
Project Location
The Project site is located on the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the City of los Banos In Merced County, The 28,5 acre ProJec1 site Is bound by Overland Avenue to the north, Johnson Road to the west, and Industrial uses to the south. 124
' . j
Project Description
The Project proposed annexing the e)(lsting parcel (APN: 081-110-007) into the Incorporated City limits for the future development of Industrial type uses.
Site CharacterlttJca
The Project sUe consists of one (1) parcel covering 8 total of approxImately 28.5 acres. The Aaseasor's Parcel Number for the property Is: 081-140-013.
Principal vehicular access to the site Is provided along Overland Allenue and Johnson Road.
Topography
The Project alte Is located In California's Central Valley. The topography of the region Is flat. Topography of the site is nearly flat and It does not contain any distinct topographic features.
On-5lte Land U9H Cover
Much of the 28.5 acre site Is in aclive com eod elfalfa production.
SurroundIng land Uses
The Project sHe is located on the northern edge of the City of Los Banos with scattered agricultural operations to the north, along with Industrial uses to the west and south. and Low Density Residential uses to the east.
Existing General Plan Land UaG and Zoning Designations
While the Project sUe Is located outside the City of Los Banos' Jurisdictional boundary, It Is within the City's Sphere of Influence. The Project site has been given a land use designatfon In !he City's General Plan, end the goals end policies of the General Plan are applicable. The current General Plan d~lgnatlon for the Project sile Is Industrial.
Currently allowed US8S and development standards are those associated with the County's present zoning designation of City Plan Area and General Plan designatIon of General AgricullUre (A.'). Upon annexallon. the proposed uses would be permItted because the proposed Project Includes prezonlng the property to a City of Los Banos zoning district and an annexation to the City. It ie anticipated that the con&trucllon of the proposed Project would begin upon completion of entitlement, annexatlon and buildIng permit approvals.
Infrastruoture
Domestlc water s9evices will be provIded by the City 01 Los Banos by connecting to an existing len (10) Inch water line located on Johnson Road and Overland 125
Avenue. Sanitary sewer services wtll be provided by the City of Los Banos connecting to an existing sewer line located along Overiand Avenue and extended to the project site. Storm drain servIces wIll be provided by connecting to the City of Los Banos via an existing storm drain line located on Johnson Road and Overland Avenue. Fire hydrants will also be installed upon development In accordance with the City of Loa Banos Fire Department standards and specifications. Dry utilities (I.e. gas and electric) will be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric.
Development of the proposed Project site will consist of the ~moval of irrigation Improvements currently onsile.
Public: Actlons and Approvals RequIred
This InlUal Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be used by the following jurisdIctions and agencies when deciding whether to grant the following discretional)' actions:
• City of Los Banos: Annexation/Pre-ZonefTentative Parcel Map/Site Plen • LAFCo: Annexatlon'approval
In addition to the City of Los Banos, there may also be local. state. and fedetal responaibJe agencies thet have discretionary or appellate authority over the specific a$pects of the proposed Project.
126
City of 1.08 Ban08
520J Street
L.oa Banos, CA 93635
(209) 827·7000
Environmental Checkllat Form
1. ProJect TItle:
AMG & Assoclates Annexation No. 2013-01
2. Lead Agency N.me and Address:
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93836
3. Coniact Person and Phone Number:
Stacy Souza Elms
Assistant Planner II
(20S) 827-7000 ext. 133
Stacy,elms@losbanos_org
4. Prolect LocatIon:
Tha proposed project Is located wfthln the City of Los Banos, County of Merced.
Specifically, the proposed Project aile Is located on a 28.5 acre sll& (APN: OB1-110- 007) and Is bounded by the following:
North: OVerland Avenu8 snd Agticulturallranchetl.e type uses Sou\h: existing Industria I usee and vacant property
Eaet: ElIlsOng elngle-famUy rasldflnUa) dsvelopment
WeG\; John8on Road end exlstlllQ Industrial food proC8fl'Slng plant
6. Project Proponent:
AMG & Assoclstea
18633 Ventura Boulevard. Suite 1014
Encino. CA 91438
6. General Plan Designation:
Industrial
7. Zoning:
Industrial after annexation
--_._----------------_ •. _---
127
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: (Boxes ere checked below If the proposed project has the potentlel fa Gause slgnificsnt Impects, II none then Wo SignHicsnt Jmpac/s~ may be ch8CkecJ)
o Aesthetics o Agriculture end Forestry
Resources
o Biological Resources o Cullural Resources
o Hazard, & Hazardous o HydrologyllNater Quality
Maleriels
o Minerai Reaources o Noise
o Public Services o Recreallon
o UtHltleslSeNice Systems o Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DETERMINATION: (To be compl&ted by the Lead Agency)
On fhe basis of this Inltlsl evaluation:
o AlrQueJity
0 Geology/Soils
0 Land U,e I Planning
o Populatlon/Houlling
o TransportatlonITraffic
o Mandatory Findings of
Significance
\ and that the proposed projed COULD NOT have e 61gnlficant effect on the environment, end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will IwI preperl!!d,
I find \hat although the proposed pf()Ject could heYe 8 significant effect 00 the envlronmen~ there will not X be a slgnlftcant effeet In Ihl' C886 because revisions In the project have bltn made bV or agreed 10 bV the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
J find !hat Ille proposed project MA. Y have a slgnlIlcant effect on the environment, end an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required.
I find \/lilt ilia propo&ed projecl MAY have a 'potenltally allJ"lficenl impact" or 'po!enUel1y significant unless mitigated" Impact on the en'illOnment, but at laas! one ertecl 1) 11118 been adequately analyzed In an earlier document pUIWent to applicable legal atenClal'(!S, and 2) has been edc!res.aed by mlligat!on m9aQur841 base.d on thQ ear •• r an.lyels 8S described on attaehed sbaats. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 18 required, buIll muslanalyze only the elfecb; thet ramaln to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could Nlve slgnlflc.enl effect on the enVironment, bec:/luae a" po!enUBlly significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately In an saller fiR or NEGATIVE DECLARA.TlON pursuant to applicable alandard, ond (b) have been avoided or millgsted puralJant to tltet eerller EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Including revIsions or mltlgsUon me6sure& !hal are Imposed upon the propoud project nothing further Is required.
Slacy Souz.a Elms, Assletant Plann&r II Date
128
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Notes:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the Information sources cited In the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer Is adequately supported If the referen09d information sources show that the Impact simply does not apply to projects like the one Involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it Is based on proJect..apeclfic fectors, 86 well 8S general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to poJllJIants. ba$ed on a pro!ectspecific screening analysis).
2. All answers mugt lake account of the whole action Involved, Including off-site, as well as on-site, cumula1lve, as weU as project-Jevel, indirect. as well as direct, and construction, as well 8S operational Impacts.
3. Once a determination has been made that 8 particular physical Impact may occur, the checklist answers must Indicate whether the impact Is potentially significant les8 than significant with mitigation, Of less than significant. ·Potentlally Significant Impact~ is appropriate If 1here Is substantial evidence that an effect may be signifICant If there are one or more ''Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination Is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the Incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly eXplaIn how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Secllon XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be croBs-referenced).
5. Ear1ier analyees may be used where, pursuant to the tiering. program EIR. or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequstely analyzed In an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(O). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyals Used. Identify and slate where they are avaUable for review.
b) ImpaC1 Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed In en earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state Whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based 01'1 the earlier analySis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures -----,-_. __ . __ ._------_.
129
which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addres8 site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Information sources for potenNaJ impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been Incorporated Into the checklist references. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, Includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement Is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source (If>t is attached, and other sources used or IndivIduals contacted are cited In the discussion.
8. This InitIal study formal Is the format suggested In the 2007 CEQA Guidelines.
G. The explanation of each Issue Identifies:
a. the Significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each questIon; and
b, the mitigation measure Identified, if any, to reduce the Impact to less than significant
--------.---~
130
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST: (A briaf answer to m1 quesllons Is provided) I. Aelitheti,s.· Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effecl on B scenic
vieta?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Lese than
Significant wl
MlIlgalion
Incorporated
o
Lesslhan
Significan!
Impact
No
Impact
o
Comments: The p(o!}osed Project is not within an area designated as 8 Bcenlc vista nor does It Include such signiflcent scenio resources as natul'8l!y occurring trees, rook oulcropplngs or historic buildings.
According to tl'le City of Los Banos 2030 Ganerel Plan and Environmental Impact Report (fiR), the proposed project a.rea Is not considered a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project will have a leu than slgnlflcent Impact.
b. SubstantIally damage scenic resources
Including. but not limited to. trees, rock 0 0 0 1:2)
outcropplngs, and historic bLdldlngs within /3
state scenic hlgnway?
Comments: The proposed project Is located within the elly of Los Banos, and is not located on a Stat& designated highway. Based on a review of the Callfornta Department of Transportation website, hnp:llwww.dol.ca.govJhg/LandArch/ecenlc highways!, the nearesi Slate scenic highway Is Interatats 5. between the Merced COLlnly line and San JoaquIn County line. The proposed project Is not located on or edJacanllo Interstate 6. and therefore, will have no Impllct to a State scenic highway. c. Substantially degrade Ihe existing visual 0 0 0 181
character or quality of the 8lte and lis
surroundings?
Comm&nts: The development of the ProJect will nol degrade the sile or lis surroundIngs. The Project Is compatible with land uses In the General Plan and existing development. Therefore, no Impact relating to visual character or quality of site and surroundings.
d. Creale B new source ofsubatantlallight or
giere, whlch would adl/Of1Iely affect day or
nighttime views In Ihe area?
o o o
Comments: Development of the proposed project v.1U Include the Inalallation of street lighting and IltJhting associated with Industrial development. As such. the proposed projecl will result In e new 80urce of light.
However. any Ilghtlng installed will Installed In accordance with the City of Los Banos standards and specifications. Therefore. the proposed project will have B (eu than aignificant to lighting and glare. 131
categories and IBBues:
II. Agriculture RHOUrC98 - Would the project:
Potenllally
Slgnlflcanl
Impact
Lesa than
Significant wI
MItigation
Incorporated
lass than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a Convert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland or
Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepal'8d pursuant to the 0 0 Igj 0 Farmland Mapping and MonHoring program of the
California Resource Agency. 10 non-agricultural
use?
Commenta: The project alta is classifIed a8 "Farmland of Slatewide Importance" according to the CalifornJa Department of Conservation - Division of Land Resources; however, long-term farming operallons al the project site are Impractical due 10 Its location In an established Industrial zone district. Tha project slta Is surrounded by the CIIy IImlls on three sides designated for urban development. In adopting the Los Banos General Plan EIR, \he Ci\y of Los Banos made findings of overriding con$\d&ralion& for lou of agriCUltural land. Therefore, the Ios$ of thl. important farmland would be consldared 8 1658 than IJgnllieanf Impact b. Conflict with existing zoning for egrtcultilraillee, 0 0 0 ~ or II Williamson Act Contract?
Comments: The Projeci will not confllc;t with e)elatlng zoning for agricultural use and Is not under a \Mlliamson Act contract. As such, there Ia no Impact re!allno to conflicting zoning or Williamson Act contracts..
c. Conflict with existing zoning for. or cause 0 0 181 0 rezoning of, forestland. limbetland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production.
Comments: The proposed proJed slta Is de8lgna1ed Industrlelln aCCOI'dance wHh the LOB Banos General Plan end wlU be pre-zoned 8a suct!. The prope(\y 16 not zoned for foreal land uees, and therefore, will have a lesB than &igntfh:ant Impact r&latlng to foreet land. d. Re8ult In the 11)8s of forestland Of conversion of
forest land to non·forest use? o o o
Comments: The project Bite Is surrounded by existing urban development on the south. east. and west.
The project site Is not situated on lands considered to be forsst 'and. Therefore, the proposed projed will have a les8 then Significant impact.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
whIch, due to their location or nature, could result
In conversion of Farmland, (0 non-agncultural use
or converslDn of foreet land to non-forest u.se?
o o o
Commenta: The project site Is bounded by existing urban development, and It Is designated for Industrial uses by the Cily of Los Banos 2030 General Plan. Therefore. the propo8ad project will have a less than significant Impact.
--- ---
132
Categories and Isauee:
III. Air Quality - Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obatruct implementation of the
appi!c.able air quality plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
less.han
Significant Wi
MlUgatlon
Incorporeted
o
Leas than No
Slgnlneant Impact
Impact
o
Comments: The Los Banoa Geneflll Plan EIR concludes that expected population growth ralulUng i(om implementation of the los Banos General Plen would result In B slgnlflcant Impact on regional emission a1 reactive organic gases (ROG). nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM,/). Severe' policlea, Implementing ectlons, and mitigation measures were presented to mitigate far this Impact. The City certified the EtR and adopted 8 statement of overtldlng conslderallons. The proposed project 18 conaistent with the land use d&slgnatlon established and there ara no project specific air quaRty Impact8 that era peCUliar to the project 8lte. CEQA mandates that proJeds consistent with the lend use do8lgnation and development denelliea of a ganarel plan for wn/ch an EIR was certffied shall not require addItional environmental review (CEOA Guidelines Section 151B3). The proposed project 1$ consistent with the General Plan, end therefore. no further review is necessary.
b. Violate BOY air quality alandard or contribute
substantially to an eldstlng or projected air
quality violation?
Comments: Pleaee refer to comment 111.6
c. Result in 8 cumwlltivaly considerable nat
Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region Ie attainment under en applicable
federal or alate ambient eir quality .. Iandard
(Including releasing emissions, which 6J(ceed
quanUtatllle tnreaholdl for ozone precuraor)?
Comman .. : : Please refeT to comment I".a
d. Elcpoae sensitive receptol'& to substantiel
pollutant concentrations?
Comments: Please refer to comment IIl.a
s. Create objectionable odol'& affecting a
substantial numbero( people?
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
Comments: Allowed UteS within the Indua1rialland uae and zoning deSignations ha'le the potenllal to result In 8ubstantial odors. However, through the Los Banos Municipal Code, Section 9-3.2106, no emla810n shall be permitted of odorous g88&$ or other odorous matter In such quantHies as to be readily detectable when dilUted in the ralio of one volume of Ddorous air to four (4) volumes of elean air al the lot line. Existing residential development is located east of the project. Therefore, the Los Banos Municipal COde would be 8n appropriate way to addrs" any potenllal objectionable odors that might be created by development of the project sits. Each subsequent developer at the project eKe shIll be required to comply v.4th Section 9-3.2108 of lhe Los Banos Municipal Code.
-~.-"----'
133
Catlgorl .. and lasue.a:
IV. Blologlca! RY9urc88· Would fhe project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effecl, either
directly or through habltst modHlcatlons. on
sny specles Identified 8S a candidate,
Potentially
SIgnificant
Impact
Lest than
Significant wI
MItigation
Incorporated
Lass than
Slgnillcanl
Impact
No
Impact
sensillve, or speclal stetus specIes in local or 0 0 0 181 realonal plans. pollclas, or regulallon. or by the
Callfomla Department of Fish and Geme or
U.S. Fieh and Wildlife SeNlce1
Comments: The project site Is vileant land In an area on the edge of urban development, The land haa bean hlstorlcallv used for agriculturel production and continuously dlsked; fherefore, the value of this land to wildlife Is expected to be very low. Oue to the location, surface and surrounding uses there Ie no Impact. b. HaVQ 8 substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community IdentHied in local or regional plans.
policies, regulations. or by the Callrornia
Department of Fish end Game or U.S. Fleh
and Wildlife Service?
o o o
Comments: Bllsed on review of the CHili 2030 General Plan and EIR. the proposed proJaclls not located within an area known to contain riparian habllat. Most, If not all, of the riparian habitat located withIn the City is located along Loa Banos Creek. The proposed project is not localed within, or adjacent to Los Banoe Creek, Therefore, the pro pond project Will heva s less ttlan Significant Impact c. Have a substantial adver&Q effect on federally
protoctad wetJands 85 deflned by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (Including, but nol
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrologlcaJ
interruption, or other means?
o o o
Comments: Baaed on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and SR, there are no identified wel/ands within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project wm have a le88 fhan eJgnlflcant Impact. d. Interfere substantIally with Ihe mOllementof
any native resident or mlgretory fish or wildll(e
species or with established na(11I8 resident or 0 0 ~ 0 migratory wildlife corridors. or Impede the use
of nelive wildlife nursery sltss?
Comments: Based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR, significant Impacts to wildlife corridors, as a result of the buUd out of the General Plan Planning Area, occur wllh conslwetion of the Highway 162 bypass. 11 is also noted that new development would cause an Increase In both vehlculer traffic lavels and nighttime light levels, whIch would serve 10 deter wildlife movement. However, the proposed project is not located within the Hiahway 152 bypass area. Additionally. the proposed project Is surrounded by existing deVelopment on the 1South, easl, and west sides. Therefore, neW development created 88 a reault of the proposed project would hays minimal impacts to wildlife corridors as surrounding urban ------_._._----
134
development already exist. Therefore, the proposed project will have a leN than algnJflcant Impact. e. Confliet with any loeal policies or ordinances
protecting biological reaources, such as a tree 0 0 0 I2?J preservation policy or ordinance?
Commente: The proposed proJecf will not conflict with any local poUcies or Ordinances proteetlng biological resources, hence, there Is no Impact.
f. Cordlict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Nelunl CommunIty
Conservallon Plan, or other approved local,
regional or stale habltet conservation plen?
o o o
Commante: The proposed proJect Is nollocated within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plen or Natural Community Plan. Therefor&, the proposed project will have no Impact. ---.. -------- --_._-----
135
Categories and luues:
V. Cultural Ruourcea - Would the project:
s. Cause B eubstanlilll adverse change In the
8ignlficance of s historical resource 8S defined In
section 15064.5?
Potentially
Signifleent
Impact
o
Leas than
Slgnlflcant wi
MltIgatiOl'l
Incorporated
o
Less than
SIgn11lcant
Impact
o
No
Impact
Comments: No historical reaources have been Identified on the project elte. As allch. there 16 no Impact. b. Causil a sub$tenllal adv$rse change In the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 16064.5?
o o o
Com menta: The project site Is not located wllhln any prehistoric archaeological alles or historic archaeologlcalaltes identified In the CIty's Genera! Plan, and therefore, po1enllellmpacts to archaeological re&ourC6S are considered to be minimal. As euch, the proposed project will have a less than significant Impact.
c. Dlractly or Indirectly deslroy s unique 0 0 0 18I
paleontological rssource or site or unique
geologic fealure?
Comments: The Project does not anticipate either dltl3ctly or Indirectly destroying 8 unique paleontological resource or alte or unique geologic feature. There are no known paleontological resouroes or unique geologic fealurea on the project site. Therefore. there 18 no Impact. d. Disturb any human remaln$, Including those 0 0 I8l 0 Interred oUlside of fonnel cemetories?
Comments: If human remains alll uncovered during IIle grading and construction phases, the Project shall be cons!!!e"t wtth State 181'1 and generally observe the fotlowlng protocol: If human burlala are encountered during the grading and construction portions of the Project, won activi\le6 shell.top in the are. of diecoYety and the County Coronar shaY be noOOed. If Ihe remains 819 detennine<! to be Native Am911can In origin, the Na1lve American Heritage Commission will be notified and recommendations; for treatment "elicited (CEQA section 15064.5). Therafore, there Is Ie,s thin significant Impact 136
Categories and Issuos;
VI. Geology Jlnd Solla - Would the prajee!:
8. El<pose people or structul'eslo potential
substantial adverse effects. Including the risk
of loss, injury, or death Involving:
1} Rupture of a known earthquake faull, as
delineated on (he most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Faull Zoning Map Issued by the
State Geologlel for the sree or b1!&eO on other
substantial evidence of Ii! known fauh? Refer
to Division of Mines end Geology Special
Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefection?
Potentially
Slgnlneanl
Impad
o
o
o
o
Less Ihsn
Significant wI
MItigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
lessthsn
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
o
o
o
o
Comments: No active Of potentially active fauils are known 10 exist within the area. The closest are the Tesla-Ortlgalita Fault end the O"Neill Faull Zone, both of which are located approxlmetely seven mUes west or the City proper. Additionally. the project alte lIS not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the Impact Is less than Significant
4) Landslides? 0 0 0 181
Commenb: The exIsting terrain is fie! which is not conducIve to lend 8~ppage. In addition. the site Is not shown on published landslide mapping. Therefore. the impact Is less than slgnlflcBlIt. b. Result in Substantial eoll erosIon or the loss
of topsoil? o o o
Comments: The soils at the site may be subject to erosIon dunng the grading portion of the development.
Such condillons C8fI be managed using standard best management practices and engineering measures as re<lulred by the City PubUc: Works Department. Therefore. the Impact Is lesa than .Ignlflcanl Co Be located on a geologIe unit or soli that Is
unstable. or that would become unstable as
e result of the project. and potentially reault 0 0 r8l 0 In on- or off-sIte landslide. 1818ral spreading.
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Comments: There are no known 5011 conditions that could result In on or off~lIe landsUdes.iateral spreading. liquefaction or collapse. The General Plan ErR calle for miligatlon measures for subsidence. as such. the Impact Is le85 than slgnlfIC.9t1t
--.---.----•. ------------.. ----... -----------~"'-----.. -.-- 137
o o o
d. Be located on expansive soli, as defined In
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating $lIbstanUal risks to life or
property?
Comments: The soils within the project area lira Dossmigos Clay. This 801/ is poorly draIned. The Boll has slow permeability, e high shrink swell and low potenllal for liquefaction. The General Plan EIR has Incofl)Olated mitigation measures which make the Impact , ... than elgnlflcant. e. Have soils In<;apable of adequately
supporting the use of seplic tanka or
alternattva waatewAter dlllpoflsi systems 0 0 0 I8J wher~ &ewers are not allallable for the dispose I of wasfe weter?
Comments: The project wlH be hooked Into lhe City system. WIth that beIng 1he eElse, there Is nQ impact . . ---------"-----~---... - ------_.----
138
CategorlQS and IS8ues:
PolenUally
Significant
Impact
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Wauld the project:
Less than
Signlflc:ant wI
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less thsn
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or Indirectly. thet may have aDD !81 0
significant impact on the environment?
Comments: The project site would not generate any sub$lanllal greenhouse glls eml$slons beyond whet was previously identified In the City's General Plan and EIR. The proposed annexation Is consistent with the General Plan, end futUTS development will comply with the Polloles within. Therefore, the proposed project will heva a 18"88 than significant Impact
b. Conflict with en applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing 0 0 181 0 tha emissions of greenhouse gases?
Comments: The project eite wilt not Involve any known conflict with any adopted plan, poUcy. or regulation for reducing greenhouse g88 emissions. Therefore. (he proposed project wllt hllve e le85 than significant Impact.
-------------------------
139
Potenllally
Significant
Impact
L.onthan
Significant wI
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Huards and Hazardous Mpterial - Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard 10 the public or the
enllironment through the routine transport, 0 0 181 0
use, or disposal or hazardous matelials?
Comment8: The project site would not generate any substantial hazard to Ihe public or the environment beyond what was prevlou81y Identified In the CHy's General Plan and EIR.. The proposed annexation 16 consistent wIIh the General Plan. and future development win oomply with the Policies within. Therafore, the propo8&d project will have 8 Ie .. than slg"lflcant Impact. b. Create a e!gnlnesnt hazard to the public or the
envIronment through reasonable foreseeeble
upset and accldenl conditione Involving the 0 0 181 0
relea8e of hazardous materiliis Inlo the
envlroMlent?
Comments: The PfojQct 61\8 would not generate any &ubstanllal hazard to the public or the environment beyond what waa previously Identified In the CIty's Generel Plen and EIR. The proposed snnelC8tlon Is consistent wHh the General Plan, and future development will comply with Ihe PolicIes wdhin. Therefore, the proposed project will have a leS8 tllan $Ignlfieant Impaet. c. emit hazardouS em16eion8 or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardo\18 materlal8,
substances, or waste withIn one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
o o o
Comments: The proposed annsxetlon Is located within one-quarter mWe of the Los Banos CORE/Valley Community School loeated at 715 West H Street In addi/ioo, the Loa Benos General Plan Land Use Map identifies 8 potential school Ioeetion approximately one-<juarter mile north of the project alte. An Industrial use wtth naz.ar<iOU8 amiseione or one that handles hazardou8 or acutely hazardous materiels, aubetanOO8, or waste within olHluart.&r mRa of an existing pr proP08ed acheol. could result In 8 significant adverse environmental impilct. ImplemenlaUOn of the follov.;ng mitigation measure would ensure this potenllal Impact does nol occur.
Mltlgation Measure:
1. Prior to the appr~1 of any development on the project site, Iha Community and Economic Development Department shall review the specific use proposed wIIhln this annexation bounciery.
Proposed uses that Inc/ooe the handling of hazardous materlalt would be required to prepare 8 heaHh risks assessment to evaluate the heal1h rtsk aasoclated with that type of use within one-Quarter mile of a school. Proposed uses shall be reviewed for compatibility wllh schoole In the Immediate vicinity, end those that are determIned to be Incompatible, shall not be allowed . . _-------"
140
d. Bfllocaled on 8 elte which Is included on 8 list
of hazardous malertals sll&8 eomplled
pursuant to Government Coda Sec1ion 0 0 0 I:8l
65962.5 and, aA a result, would eNlste 8
significant hazard to the public or the
environments?
Comments: Ap~ndllC A of the Los Banos General Plan provides a lisl of hazardous sites within the City of Los Banos. Baaed on 8 review of Appendix A, the proposed project is nollocated on e site iden1Jfied ss hazardous. Therefore, the proposed projact will hava no Impact.
B. For 8 project located withIn an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan hBs not bun
adopted, wllhln two miles of a public alrpol1 or 0 0 181 0 public Ule airport, would the project result In a
safety hazard for peopte residing or worldng In
the project area?
Comments: The project site would naf rssuH In a safety hazard for the Los Banos Municipal AIrport es It is not within any of the Land Use Compatibility Zones. Therefore, the proposed project will have 8 less than significant ImpAI:t.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the proJect result In 8 safely 0 0 0 121 hazard fOT people reSiding or working In the
project area?
Comments: The project elte 18 not located y,,;thin Ihe Vicinity of a private airstrip and IheJ'efars would not Jesuit In e safety hazard, 88 such, there Is no Impact. g. Impair implementation of or physically Interfere
wI(h an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuellon plan?
o o o
Commants: The proJec1 site is would nollmpalr Imple.menlatlon of Of physically Interlere with an adopted emersency rsspon6e plan or emergency evacuatlon plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have a les& than slgnlflcant Impact. .
h. Expose people or structures to a slgnlficanl
risk of lOSS, InJUIY or dealh involving wildland
(ires, Including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
Intennlxed with wildlands?
o o o
Commenta: The proJecl site Is adjacent to 8fI urbanized area and Is noladjac:ent to wijdlan~8. As SUch. there is no Impact.
141
Cattsolies and 'ssues:
Potentially
Slgnllloant
Impact
IX. HydroloRY Ind Water Quality - Would the pro}ect:
Less than
Significant wI
Mitigation
Inoorporated
Less than
SlgnHlcant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 0 181 0 discharge requirements?
Comments: The proposed project wYl not violate Bny Federal, State, or local water quality standards or waste discharge reqUirements. Prior to the approval of any deVelopment. llle Applicant wHi be required to obtain approval from the City of Los Banos for the project's Improvement Plana. Theae Improve mente Plane include the design of Infrastructure (I.e. water, sanitary &ewer, storm drainage) required for the proposed project. Re\ll&w and approval by City staff wtD ensure tha proposed project compiles wtlh any applicable wafer quality standards and waste dlacharse requirements. Therefore, the impact will be less than sIgnificant.
b. Sub!tanllelly deplete groundwater supplies or
Interfere sub5tanllally with ground weter
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
In aqulfer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwatar table level (e.g., the production 0 0 1&1 0 rate of pr&-e)(isUng nearby wells would drop to
a level whleh would nol support eldsllng land
uses or planned u&ea (or whtch pennlts have
been granted)?
Cornman.: Water use by indurotrial users can vary substantially depending on tile actuat nature of the business. Since development plsll6 have not bean submitted. the specific Impac1s upon groundwater canna« be determIned. However, tha project 18 consistent with the City's General Plan and Water Mesler Plsn snd therefore, the City has an adequate weter supply, or has planned for an adequate water supply, 10 serve the Industrial development of this site. Therefore, thJ"lncrea6e In wafer use would be less than 81l1nl~ant c. SubstanHal1y alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, Including through the
alteration of tne course of 8 stream or !'Ner, In a
manner which would result in 8ubs1anYal
Bros/on or sNtaf{on orr or off..slte?
o o o
Comments: the propoSQd project will atter the existing drelnage patter of the site by way of eonatructlon and converting the site from raw ground to urban development. Howaver, future deVelopment wiU comply with !.he City's Oralnage OeslQn Manual and City Standards and Specifications. Compliance will be ensured through the development Improvement Plan process. Therefore, the pl1>Posed ann&xallon will have a less than significant Impact
d. Substentlally alter the eJdstlng drainage paHem
of the elte or eras, Including through the
alteration of the C:OUJ6e of a stream or river, or
aubslantially Increase the rate or amount ot
Burface runoff In a manner Which would result In
floodIng on· OT off-slf&?
o o o
Comments: The drainage palfsm w1Ihln the project area win change sUghlly given the increase of impervious surface but runoff will be c:ontalned within the City system, iherefore, the impact is (eu than ------------ ------------_._-_.
142
,
\
significant.
e. Creale or conlribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
slotmwaler draInage syatems or provfde 0 0 181 0
substantial additional sources of ponuled
runoff?
Comments: The project will not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of exisling or planned 810rm water drainage systems or provide eubstsntlal addltlonal sources of polluted runoff. As such, the impact is leas than significant.
f. othelWlse Bubslanlislly degrade waler qualil.y? 0 0 ® 0 Comments: The proposed project wHl not degrade water quality wlth!n the vicinity of the project site. As such, tna impllct Is leas than algnlflcant
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on III federal Floo<! Hazard
Boundary of Flood Insurance Rale Map or other
{\ood hazard dellneatlon map?
o o o
Comments: The project Is not Within a 100 year flood hazard area 8S mapped by FEMA, Iherefore, tnere is nolmpacl
h. Piece willlin a 100.year flood hazard area
structures which would Impede or redirect flood 0 0 0 1&1 f10W8?
Comments: The proJect Is not wilhll\ 8 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA, therefore, there is no impact.
I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death Involving flooding,
including /loodlng 88 8 resuM of the failure of a
levee or dam??
o o o
CommentB: The City of Loe Banei had adopted Generel Plan poVcles, which Include ooordination with the U.S. Army CO/l)s 01 Engln6efS on potenttal flooding rlsk.s, and en8url~ that City italY 800 Emergency Response Services are traIned to respond to catastrophIc dam failure. Therefore, the proposed project will have a le&8 than slgnlflcant Impact.
J. InUndation by seiche, tsunami, or mudllow? 0 0 0 ~
Comment.: The project would not be suscepllble to seiche. tsunami or mudflow. therefore, there Is no Impact.
--_._------_ .. _------_._ ..
143
Categorlos and Issue.:
X. LAnd Ulle and Pllnnlng - Would the project:
Potentially
SiQnlllcanl
Impact
Le881han
Slgnlflcant wi
Mitigation
Incorporated
lesslhan
Signiflesn
t Impact
No
Impact
s. Physically divide en established community? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: The project aite involves property thsl will be annexed to Ihe City and the development will oCC\Jr at the most northwestern portion of Ihe City. Therefore, there Is no Impact. b. Conflict wllh any eppUcabie Ianel use plan,
policy, 01 regulatlon of an ag&ncy with
Jurisdiction oller Ih& project (inoludlng. but nol
limited to the general plen. specific plan, loca! 0 0 0 [81 coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Comments: The project la eoNlstent wllh the Clty'8 Genersl Plsn, land use plan and policies and regulellons of the City of Los Banos and does not conflict with any mitigation me&aures eatebllshed.
Th&refore, there is no Impact.
c. Conflict with any applicable hebltat COn&eNation
plan or naturel community conservaUon plan? o o o
CommentA: The proJect does not conflict with any existing habitat conservation plana or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the propo&ed project wHI have no Impact. ------.----,~---- --
144
Categories and laBuas:
XI. Minerai Resoyrces - Would the projeC1:
a. Result In the 108S of availability of e known
minerai resource that would be of value to Ihe
(egloo and the residents of the state?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Lesslhan
Significant wI
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Commenta: There are no known mineral resources localed wllhln the projecl vicinity. no Impact.
b. Result In the loss of availability of a locally.
Important mlnersl resource recovery site
delineated on 8 local general plen, specific plan
or olher land use plsn?
o o
Lese
than
Slgnlflca
nt
Impact
No
Impact
o t8l
Therefore, there Is
o
Comments: There ere no known mineral resources located wUhtn the project vlclntly. Therefore, there Is no Impact
145
Calegori8tl and Issues:
XU. Noise· Would \Me project:
s. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of slandards established In the
local general ptan or nOiSe ordlnanoo, or
applicable standards of oiner agencles7
Potentially
Slgnlficao!
Impact
o
Less than
Significant wI
MItigation
Incorporated
o
less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
o
Commenl*: Under the City of Los Banos General Plan Noise Standards, the maximum allowable noise exposure 10 ground transportation Is 80 dB for outdoor activity areas suoh 88 golf OOUl'6es, riding &tables, water recreation, cemeteries, industrial, manufacturing, utilitIes, and agriculture. Based on a review of Figure
3.11-3 of the City's General Plan EIR, the proposed proJect Is not located within an area Identified 89 exceeding the Clty'a General Plan noise standards upon bulld-ol,ll of the city's ·Plannlng Area". The proposed project Is comlstent with the land use designations provided by the City's General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed the General Plan noise standards, end will have a lass than algnlflcant Impact.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
wccesslve groundbome vibration or 0 0 ~ 0
groundbome noise levele?
Comments: The project would not expose pll'-OI'IS to wccessive groundbome vibration or groundborne nojse levels. Improvements would be IImlled to etandards construction equipment which generally does not produce groundbome nolee or vlbratlons that would be considered excessive, af> such, the Impact is Jess than significant.
c. A ,ubstsn!ial peJrnanenl increase In a.mblent
nelM (eve Ie in the project viCinity above levels 0 0 181 0 existing without !he project?
Comments: Operations ofMure Industrial buslne,eee would add to the ambient nols& levels In the vIcinity, but that Increaes is not expected to be slgnilicant. See response to XII a. for further discussion. d. A substantial temporary or per10dlc Increaee In
emblent noise levels In the project vicinity 0 0 1&\ 0
above levels exisUng wtthout the project?
Comments: During site preparation and construction !he project would generale tempol'8l)' BOUnd lavela from heavy equipment and vehicles. Temporary elevations of ambient noise levals are anticipated; however, 1J1e intensity levels resulting from construction are not expected to rise to e level of sfgnlncance.
Furthennore, tha project would be acoomplshad Within the limitations l!atabllahea by the CIty's NoIse Ordinance. For further discussion see XII 8. Therefore. the impact would be less ttlan algniflcant. e. For a project loca1ed within an airport land use
plan or, whero such a plen hes not been
adopted, within two miles of a public alrport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people reaidlng or working In the project area
to excessive noise levels?
o
------~-------------------
o o
----------
146
comments: The project site is not withIn an airport land U6e compaUbiHly zontt, as such, there Is no Impact.
f. For a projeCl withIn the vlelnlty ot a private
aIrstrip, would the profect expose people 0 0 0 181
residing or wotkfng In the project ants fo
excessIve noise levels?
Comments: The project 18 not loealed within the vicinity of a private airstrip. therefore there is no Impact. -----------.------_._---_.
147
Categori85 and Issues:
XIII. Population and Housing - Would the project:
Potentlsfly
Significant
Impact
Less than
SI;nificanl wI
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce aubst&nUal populalJon growth In an
area, elthar directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or Indirectly (for 0 0 181 0
exemple, Ihrough oxtenelon of roads or other
Infrllstrud.ure )1
Comments: The project will not result In popUlation growth directly and 16 conSistent with the land use designation of the Loa Banos Generel Plan. The projac\ will not Increase the need for lnfraelroclure beyond that already planned for In the General Plan. Therefore, the Impact Is lesa than slgnlfiAnt. b. DIsplace 6ubGtantiai numbers 01 ex!etlng
housing, nee&aslt8tlng the conslruction of 0 0 0 ~
replacement housing eleewhere1
Comments: The propo8ed proJect will not require the acquisition of residences, the displacement of any persons or the need to construct replacement hOl.l8lng elsewhere, 88 such, there 18 no Impact. c. DIsplace aubB1anllal numbera of people.
necessllallr.g the construction of replacement 0 0 0 ~
housIng e\aewheF$?
Comments: The proposed pro)ect Is currently vacant, and at build-out will not displace any number of elll81ing housing. Therefore, the proposed project Will have no Impact. 148
· "
Categories and laaues:
XIV. public Sarylee.!
a. Would the project result io substantial adVerse
physlcfllimpacla 8880clated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmentsl
facilities. need for new Of physlcalty altered
governmental faclliHes, the construction of
which could eause IIlgnillcant 8nvlronmental
Impacts, In order to maintain acceptable
service ratios. respon~ times or other
performance obJectives for sny of the public:
services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
less than
Significant wI
MIUg8110n
Incorporated
Lenihan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1) Fire protection? 0 0 181 0
Comments: Currently the project site 18 va can!. The proposed project would rasun In increase service calls for the los Banos Fire Depariment and the los Banos ponce Department. Although this project alone would not have a s/gnl11cent effort on these aeJVlc8s. cumula\'lll8 development within the City WOUld. As sLlch, the Impact Is lea. than elgnlficanL
2) Police protection? 0 0 181 0
Comments: The proposed proJect would nOI necessitate the provision of neW or altered police protection reclltles and lis use was evaluated within the General Plan. As such, the Impact Is lass th an significant. 3) Schools? 0 0 lEI 0
Comments: The proposed project would not nscaBSllate the provision of new or eltered school facilities and Ita uae 11198 evaluated within the General Plan. As such. the impact is 1888 than significant. 4) Parks? 0 0 ~ 0
Comments: The proposed project would no( neC&8$/tate the provision of new o( akered park facUitiee and Its use was evaluated within the Generel Plan. As such, the Impact is ht56 than slgnlflcant. 5) Other public faclllthts? 0 0 121 0
Comments: The proposed project would not neosssitate the prollll;ion of new OJ altered publJG facllllies end its use was evaluated wllhln the Gener.ll Plan. As such, the Impact is less than significant. -----------------.--~-
149
Catego,188 and Ieaues;
XV. RecreatIon
Potentially
Slgnl1lcanl
Impact
Leas than
Significant wI
MIUgatlon
Incorporated
Leas than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Would the project Inereaae the use of
elClsting neighborhood Bnd regional per1<s or
other recreaUonal faclUUsa such that 0 0 0 ~
sub$tanllal physIcs! deterioration of the
facility wDuld occur or be accelerated?
Comments: The proposed project would nol neoe9sitate the provision of new or physically altsred recreallonal faclllUes as it is an Industrial use and il is not growth Inducing, as such, there 1$ no Impact. b. Does Ihe project Include recreatlonsl
facilities or require the construction or
elIpanslon of recreallonalfacllities which 0 0 0 ~
might have lin adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Comments: The proposed project does nol Include (sereational facillUea or require the construction or expansion of recreational factlitles which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment 88 It Is an Industrial use and K Is not growth InduCing. As such, Ihe use has no impOlct. 150
Categories and Issues;
XVI. ,Transportaflon I Traffic: - Would the project
Potentially
Slgnlflcant
Impact
Leea the.n
Significant wI
Mitigation
Inoarporaied
less
than
SIgnifies
nt
Impact
No
Impact
4. Cause en increase In traffic which Ie
sUbstanllalln relallon to the existing traffle
load end capacity of the street system (I.e.,
re~ut! 11"1 a substantiallncr8Qse In either the 0 0 ~ 0 number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestlon at
Inlersec\lons)1
Comments: The Clty'a 2030 Genef3l Plan Circulation Element provides the guiding polle/es and Implementing actions associated wHh transportatlon In the ClIy. Speclncally, fmplemenUng Action C·I·10 of the General Plan IltateS, "Develop and manage the roadway system to oblaln segments sa LOS C end inlersec:llons at LOS 0 or belter for two hour peak periods (AM and PM) on all major roadways end inlerseelions in Los Banos. The proposed project will comply with the poliCies of the 2030 General Plan end have a leS$ than significant Impact
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service siendard established by (he 0
county congesUon management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Comments: Please see the comment above In flem XVI 8.
c. Result in a change In air traffic patl6rns,
includIng either an increase In traffic levels or
a change In location that Tesult8 In
substantial sefety risks?
o
o o
o o
Comments: The proposed project will not result In the change of air patterns, most notable from the LOll Banos Municipill Airport. Therefore, the proposed project will have e less than signIficant Impact. d. SubstanUaUy Increase hazards due to a
desIgn feature (e.9 .. sharp curves or
dangerous fnten;ections) or incompBUbfe
uses (e.g., farm equIpment)?
o o o
Comments: Streel Improvement 8 Installed as part ot the proposed project win be done In accordance with the City's Standard!! 81'1d Specifications. As such, hazard& dUB to a design feature are not anticipated to ooeur. Therefore, the proposed project will have 8 leas than significant Impact e. Result in Inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ® 0
Comments: The prop()Sed proja!::t is bound by OVerland Avenue to the north and Johnson Road to the west. Access Is planned from both roadways. Therefore, 1he Impact Is lesa than Ilgnltleant. f. Result in Il'\Bdequate parking capacity'? 0 0 ~ 0
Comments: CIty staft shall require the applicant to subm1t development plans that conform to Article 20, Off·Street Parking, ofthe los Banos Zoning Code. Therefore, the Impact Isle88 than significant. 151
g. Conflict with adopled poUcies, plans, Of 0 0 (gJ 0
pI'O.!lram& supporting IIl1emall\le transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bleycle rBck$)?
Commonts; Standard frontage improvemeots ~.e. sidewalks) and oonnec1Jvity 10 existing streets will aUow for non·motonzed transportation and 90C&SS to the project. Therefore, the proposed project will have 9 leis than 8Igniflt:.nt Impact
--~----~-.--.----.
152
Categories and Issues:
Potentlally
Significant
Impact
XVII. Utilities and Serv/t:8 Sval!ma: - Would the project:
lessth.m
Significant wi
Mitigation
IncorpO/'$ted
Less then
Signlflcant
Impact
No
Impact
8 . E)(ceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Qualily Control 0 0 18) 0 Board?
CommentB: Wastewater will be treated by the City system In accordance with City standards and It will not excs6d the requirements of the Regional Water Quslity ConltOl Board. Therefore, the Impact Is leu than slllnlflGsot.
b. Require or result In the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of exlaling facrutteB, the 0 0 fZI 0
construCllon of which could cause significant
environmental effecIB?
Comm&nt8: The proposed project 18 consistent with the los Banos General Plan and therefore, 18 oonslstent with the water master plan and the City's plans 10r the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the proposed project wtll be required to pay the applicable Caphal FaCilitIes Fees, Which InClude water and sanitary sewer feos, a\ the lime of development. Therefore, the prDposed project will have a 1688 than slgnlflcanllmpacl
c. Require or resuH In the oonstruct/on of new
storm water drainage facllhles or eXpansiOn of 0 0 ~ 0
eldatlng facllllles, tha construction Df which
could cause algnlflcant environmental effects?
Comments: The design and InMaliallon of the proposed project's storm drainage system will be done in accordance with the C!ty'e Drainage 08s\gn Manual, which 18 consistent with fhe Los Benos Gerleral Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project will have Ii less than elgnlficanl impact d. Have sufficient water Suppll9S avellable to
serve the project from exlatlng entJUements 0 0 181 0
and re80urcss, or ere new or expanded
entl\lemenls needed?
Comments: The Clly hes adequate water supplies available 10 serve the proposed project and no new enlitlements ere needed, 98 such, the impact Is 1984 than significant. e. Result In 8 delermloation by the w8&lewalef
treatment proylder which serves or may ,erva
the project that It ha& adequate capacity to 0 0 181 0 serve the project's projected demand In addition to the provlder'a existing
commitments?
Comments: The proposed project has bean Included in the City's Master Plan 10 it Is MOWn that Ihere Is adequate capaelty wi1hout 8 request for delarmlnation. Therefore, the Impact Is Isss than significant. ----------.. _ ------------------------_.
153
to Be aeNed by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the 0 0 !81 0
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comman .. : Construction of the proposed project would generate some construcllon debri$ {hat would Hkely be disposed of In a landfill. However. construotion debris would be recycled or reused where feasible ami eCDnomic. In addition, much of the conatructlOil debris woutd be Inert malerlal. which could be diapoaed of, In an Inert landfill thereby saving usable landfill capacity In landfills. Once conatructlon 18 complete (he project would be served by 8 City contracted waate djlpo8BI heuler which offers recycling. As such, the Impact Is leag than significant
g. Comply with federal, stale. and local etak.ile& 0 0 (8J 0 Bnd regulations related to solid waste?
Comments: The proposed project will comply with federal. &tata and local slatutes and regula(ions related 10 solid waste. A$ such, the Impact ;s la8e than atgniflcanl 154
. ~'.
XVIII. MANOATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
s. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the qualHy of the environment, substantially
reduce the habltst of e fieh or wildlife apecies,
cause a fish or wildlife populeUon to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten 10 ·0 181 0 0
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or elimlnale
Important examples of the major periodl'! of
Callfornle histoty or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed project's potentipl Impact on hazards snd Hazardous Material, 6S dascrlbed In Sec1ion 3.-VlII of this Initial Study. Potentially significant Impacts were identified In this lsaue area, and as such. mitigation has been Incorporated Into the proposed project to reduce said impacl9 to a level of less then significant.
b. Does the proJee:! have Impacts thai are
Individually limited, but cumulallvely
considerable? ("Cumulatively con§lderabls"
means that the Incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed In connection
with the effects of past projects, the effeots of
other current projects, end the effects of
probable future proJect.s)?
o o o
Comments: The polentlal environmental impacts Identified in this Inlliel study have been considered in conjunction with each other as to their potenfial to generate other potentially significant Impacts. The various potentlal environmental Impacts of the proposed project will not combine to generate any potentially significant cumuletive Impacts.
c. Doe8 the project have environmental effects
which wilt ceuse 8ubstanllllllldverae effects on
human beings, either directly or IndIrectly?
o o o
Commanta: This InlUa\ Study has considered the potential environmental Impacts of Ihe proposed project In the dllcrele Isaue areas outlined In the CEQA Environmental Checklist. During the environmental analysis, the potential for the proposed project to result in 6ubstanti81 impacts on human beIngs In these ia$ue areas, as well as the potential for substanUallmpacts on hUman be[ng8 to oCCUr outside of these Issue areas, was considered, and no other such Impacts ware identified.
E. REFERENCES
City 01 Los 8en08 General Plan
City of Los Bllnos Zoning Ordinance
CEQA
All reference m.terlal may be rovlewed at the City of Loe Banos Community and Economic Oevelopment Depariment, 620 J Street, loa Ban08, CA 93636. ------_. __ •. _--_.
155
Environmental
Issue
Haardsand
liau1'dous
Materiels
Exhibit C
aty of Los Banos
AMG artd Assodates Annexarion
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting program
SCH# 2014091056
Mitigation
Monitoring
Proposed Mitigation Repol1fng
ResponsibIlity
andT1mTng
Prior to the approval of any development on the project Community and Mttlptlon Repartlng and/or
Monitoring Progl'iltn
Prior to ap~1 of:my dev\!lopment phlns,
slle, the Community and Economic Development EconomIC a health risk assessment would need '10 be Department shall review the specifJc use proposed Oevelopment prepared If the prolJOsed use will be wi1hIn this annSllaltk.ln boundary. Proposed U38S that Department handling hatardcM matllrlals. indude the handling of hazarOOus materials would be
required to prepare a health risks assessment to
evaluate the health risk associated with that type of
use within one-quBrter mile of a school. Proposed
uses shall be revtewed for compatibility with schools In l11e immediate vicinity. and those that are determined
to be incompatible, shaH not be allowed.
---
I
156
Environmental
Issue
Air Quality
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Exhibit C
City of Los Banos
AMG and Associates Annexation
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
SCH# 2014091056
Mitigation
Monitoring
Proposed Mitigation Reporting
Responsibility
and Timing
The Applicant and/or Project Proponent shall comply Community and with Rule 9510, as adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Economic Air Pollution Control District. Evidence of Rule 9510 Development compliance shall be submitted to the City's Community Department and Economic Development Department prior to the
Proposed Project's final discretionary approval. For the purposes of the Proposed Project and this Mitigation
Measure, the "final discretionary approval" shall
constitute approval of any specific development project within the Proposed Project area.
Prior to the approval of any development on the project Community and site, the Community and Economic Development Economic
Department shall review the specific use proposed Development within this annexation boundary. Proposed uses that Department include the handling of hazardous materials would be
required to prepare a health risks assessment to
evaluate the health risk associated with that type of use within one-quarter mile of a school. Proposed uses
shall be reviewed for compatibility with schools in the immediate vicinity, and those that are determined to be incompatible, shall not be allowed.
Mitigation Reporting and/or
Monitoring Program
Prior to the Proposed Project's final
discretionary approval evidence of
compliance with Rule 9510 shall be
provided to the Community and Economic
Development Department
Prior to approval of any development plans,
a health risk assessment would need to be
prepared if the proposed use will be
handling hazardous materials.
157
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
158
ORDINANCE NO.
AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE LOS BANOS CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A PRE ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AND AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 28.5 ACRES GENERALL Y
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND AVENUE AND
JOHNSON ROAD MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 081-110-007 [AMG INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK ANNEXATION]
WHEREAS, in order to strengthen the public land use planning process, to encourage private participation in the process, to reduce the economic risk of development and to reduce the waste of resources, the Legislature adopted the Development Agreement Law (§ 65864, et seq. of the Government Code).
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement Law and annexation law permits cities and counties to contract with private interests for their mutual benefit in a manner not otherwise available to the contracting parties. Such agreements, as authorized by the Development Agreement Law and by common law, assure property developers that they may proceed with their projects with the assurance that approvals granted by public agencies will not change during the period of development. Cities and counties are equally assured that costly infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, sewers, fire protection facilities, will be available at the time development projects come on line.
WHEREAS, AMG & Associates, LLC ("Developer") has filed an application with the City of Los Banos ("City") to Annex and Pre-Zone approximately 28.5 acres located at the southeast comer of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007 ("Subject Property").
WHEREAS, Developer desires to proceed with site planning with the City after completion of the annexation proceedings. Inasmuch as the Developer has not submitted development plans, and that the City has not had any opportunity to review any specific proposals, the parties agree that the Pre Annexation Agreement ("Agreement") can and should create only limited vested rights, as defmed by the terms of the Agreement.
WHEREAS, the parties have, in good faith, negotiated the terms which carry out the legislative purpose set forth above and will assure the parties to this Agreement of mutually desirable development of the Subject Property.
WHEREAS, City, in response to Developer's applications, after public hearings and environmental analysis, has granted approval of the Annexation and Pre-zoning for the Subject Property ("Entitlements").
WHEREAS, in support of the Entitlements described herein, and in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and City guidelines, City has accepted 159
and approved a mitigated negative declaration and subsequent mitigated negative declaration dated October 16, 2020 for the foregoing entitlements and this Agreement.
WHEREAS, parcel maps, vesting tentative subdivision maps, tentative subdivision maps, general and final development plans, final subdivision maps, design review, improvement plans, issuance of building permits, or any other entitlements necessary for the development of the Subject Property, shall be subject to prior approval of (a) a Specific Plan for the entire Subject Property; (b) a Finance and Implementation Plan; (c) a second tier Development Agreement for individual parcels within the Specific Plan area; (d) and/or other required permits or approvals issued by the City.
WHEREAS, development of the Subject Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, pre-zoning, the specific plan, and appropriate environmental determinations will provide for orderly growth and development consistent with the City's General Plan and other development policies and programs.
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021, the City Planning Commission considered the Agreement, and recommended its adoption to the City Council.
WHEREAS, having duly considered the Agreement and having held the noticed public hearings, City finds and declares that the provisions of the Agreement are consistent with the maps and text of the City's General Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY OF LOS BANOS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance incorporates, and by this reference makes a part hereof, the Pre , Annexation Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the provisions of Section 6 hereof.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance is adopted under the authority of Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines, as follows:
(a) the Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, in that it establishes certain development rights, obligations and conditions for the implementation of AMG Industrial Business Park Annexation Project;
(b) the Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the general plan designations which will apply to the Property;
(c) the Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice;
160
(d) the Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and
(e) the Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
SECTION 5. The foregoing fmdings and determinations are based upon the following:
(a) The Recitals set forth in this Ordinance, which are deemed true and correct; (b) Resolution No. 5628, approved by the City Council on December 3. 2014, making findings as to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by and incorporated in said Resolution, which Resolution and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full; (c) Resolution No. 5629 approved by the City Council on January 7, 2015 requesting the Annexation and Pre-Zone of approximately 28.5 acres of property located at the southeast comer of Overland A venue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007 which Resolution and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full; (d) Ordinance No. 1124 approved by the City Council on January 7, 2015, amending the Zoning Map to Pre-Zone approximately 28.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007 which Ordinance and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full; (e) Resolution No. __ , approved by the City Council on _. 202_, making findings as to the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration dated October 16, 2020, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by and incorporated in said Resolution, which Resolution and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full;
(f) The City's General Plan;
(g) All City staff reports (and all other public reports and documents) prepared for the Planning Commission, City Council, or others relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the pre Zone, the Development Agreement, and other actions relating to the Property;
(h) All documentary and oral evidence received at public hearings or submitted to the Planning Commission, or City during the comment period relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, the pre Zone, the Development Agreement, and other actions relating to the Property; and (i) All other matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including, hut not limited to the City's fiscal and financial status; City general ordinances, policies and regulations.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves the Pre Annexation Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the provisions of Section 7 hereof, and subject further to such minor, conforming and clarifying changes consistent with the terms thereof as may be approved by the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney prior to execution thereof.
SECTION 7. The approval contained in Section 6 hereof is subject to and conditioned upon Resolution No. 5628; Resolution No. 5629; Ordinance No. 1124; Resolution No. ; and the 161
approval of the AMG Industrial Business Park Annexation by Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission.
SECTION 8. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance as provided in Section 10 hereof, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Los Banos.
SECTION 9. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts authorized to be performed by the City Manager in the administration of the Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
SECTION 10. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption; provided, however, that if the actions referred to in Section 7 hereof are not effective on such date, then the effective date of this Ordinance shall be the date on which all of said actions become effective, as certified by the City Clerk and cause the same to be posted and published once within fifteen days after passage and adoption as may be required by law; or, in the alternative the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk five days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and, within fifteen days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published, the aforementioned summary and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk.
Introduced by Council Member ____ and seconded by Council Member _ ___ _ on the __ dayof ,202_.
Passed on the __ day of _ ____ , 202_ by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
162
EXHIBIT A
[PRE ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT]
163
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
164
RECORDJNG REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO
CITY CLERK
CITY OF LOS BANOS
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Gov't Cd 6103
PRE·ANNEXATION
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AND
. AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
RELATIVE TO THE
AMG INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK ANNEXATION
THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING EXHIBITS, TOTALS PAGES.
EACH PAGE IS "BATES STAMPED" SEQUENTIALLY IN THE LoWER RIGHT HAND CORNER.
165
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
166
PRE-ANNEXATION
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AND
AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
RELATIVE TO THE
AMG INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK ANNEXATION
THIS PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this _day of , 202_, by and between the CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation ("City"), and AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Article 2.5, Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 (§ 65864, et seq. of the Government Code) relating to Development Agreements, and pursuant to annexation law.
RECITALS
1. In order to strengthen the public land use planning process, to encourage private participation in the process, to reduce the economic risk of development and to reduce the waste of resources, the Legislature adopted the Development Agreement Law (§ 65864, et seq. of the Government Code),
2. The Development Agreement Law and annexation law permits cities and counties to contract with private interests for their mutual benefit in a manner not otherwise available to the contracting parties. Such agreements, as authorized by the Development Agreement Law and by common law, assure property developers that they may proceed with their projects with the assurance that approvals granted by public agencies will not change during the period of development. Cities and counties are equally assured that costly infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, sewers, fire protection facilities, will be available at the time development projects come on line.
3. Developer has filed an application with the City of Los Banos ("City") to Annex and Pre-Zone approximately 28.5 acres located at the southeast comer of Overland Avenue and Johnson Road, Merced County, California, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 081-110-007 ("Subject Property").
4. Developer desires to have the Subject Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as General Industrial (I), as set forth in Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 15 of the Los Banos Municipal Code which designation would permit the Subject Property to be used for industrial uses and associated improvements.
5. The Subject Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality.
6. The Subject Property has zero (0) registered voters residing thereon. 167
7. Developer desires to proceed with site planning with the City after completion of annexation proceedings. Inasmuch as the Developer has not submitted development plans, and that the City has not had any opportunity to review any specific proposals, the parties agree that this Agreement can and should create only limited vested rights, as defined by the terms of the Agreement.
8. The parties have, in good faith, negotiated the terms hereinafter set forth which carry out the legislative purpose set forth above and will assure the parties to this Agreement of mutually desirable development of the Subject Property.
9. Developer owns in fee or hal) an equitable interest in the Subject Property, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto, located adjacent to the City of Los Banos.
10. City, in response to Developer's applications, after public hearings and environmental analysis, has granted approval of the annexation and pre-zoning for the Subject Property (liereinafter the "Entitlements").
11. In support of the Entitlements described in paragraph 10 above, and in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and City guidelines, City has accepted and approved a mitigated negative declaration and a subsequent mitigated negative declaration dated October 16, 2020 for the foregoing entitlements and this Agreement.
12. Parcel maps, vesting tentative subdivision maps, tentative subdivision maps, general and fmal development plans, final subdivision maps, design review, improvement plans,' issuance of building permits, or any other entitlements necessary for the development of the Subject Property, shall be subject to prior approval of (a) a Specific Plan for the entire Subject Property; (b) a Finance and hnplementation Plan - based upon a fiscal impact analysis; and (c) and/or other required permits or approvals issued by the City.
13. Development of the Subject Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the pre-zoning, the Specific plan, and appropriate environmental determinations will provide for orderly growth and development consistent with the City's General Plan and other development policies and programs.
14. On December 8, 2021, the City Planning Commission considered this Agreement, and recommended its adoption to the City Council.
15. Having duly considered this Agreement and having held the noticed public hearings, City finds and declares that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the maps and text of the City's General Plan.
168
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1. The Project. The Project is the annexation, and pre-zoning for the potential industrial development of approximately 28.5 acres of land located at the comer of Johnson Road and Overland Avenue. .
Section 1.2. Subject Property. The Subject Property is approximately 28.5 acres identified as Merced County Assessor's Parcel Number 081-110-007, generally located at the ,. . comer of Jolmson Road .and Overland Avenue. The Subject Property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this Agreement.
., I.;' • ~ .•. .• . ; ..
: . {~ . : ..
Section 1.3. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following terms, phtasesand words shall have the meanings and be interpreted as set forth in this Section. (a) Adopting Ordinance means Ordinance Number __ entitled: .' Pre Annexation Development Agreement By and Between the City of Los Banos and AMG & Associates, relative to the AMG Industrial Business Park Annexation, dated _____ _, 202_, and effective _, 202_, which approves this Agreement as required by Government Code section 658675. (b) Assumption Agreement means an agreement substantially confonning to the model assumption agreement described in Exhibit ''B'' or other agreement ina form approved by the City Attorney,. executed by a Landowner with the Developer, expressly assuming various obligations relating to the development of the Project, or portion thereof.
(c) CEQA means the California Environmental Quality Act section 21000 et seq., of the Public Resources Code of the State of California. (d) City means the Los Banos City Council, or its designee. (e) City Laws means ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, policies,· motions, directives, mitigation measures, conditions, standards, specifications, dedications, fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes), assessments, liens, · t . other exactions and impositions, and any other actions having the force of law; . that ,are enacted or adopted by City, or by its electorate through the initiative or referendum process.
(0 Developer means AMG & Associates, LLC or successor in interest. (g) Director means the Community and Economic Development Director, or 169
..
designee for the City of Los Banos.
(h) Effective Date means the effective date of the Adopting Ordinance. (i) Entitlements shall mean those approvals listed in Recital 10 including any and all conditions of approval and mitigation measures.
(j)GeIierai Plan means the General Plan of the City, including the text and maps, as may have been amended in connection with the Project. (k)Landowner is a party who has acquired any portion of the Subject Property from the Developer who, unless otherwise released as provided in this Agreement, .. shall be subjectto the applicable provisions of this Agreement. . (I).Reserved Powers shall mean those powers explicitly reserved to the. City by this Agreement. ,I ,
(m) Subject Property and/or Project Site means the property described . in Section 1.2, or the remaining portions thereof after releases from the provisions of this Agreement have been executed as authorized by this Agreement.
Section 1.4. Exhibits. Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows:
Exhibit "A" Subject Property
Exhibit ''B'' Assumption Agreement
Exhibit "C"· Special Conditions and Requirements
Exhibit ''D'' Sample Notice of Termination
Section 1.5. Incorporation of Exhibits and Recitals. Exhibits A - D and Recitals 1 · through 15 are incorporated herein, including all exhibits referred to in said Recitals. In the event of inconsistency between the Recitals and the provisions of Articles 1 through 5, the provisions of Articles 1 through 5 shall prevail.
Section 1.6. Parties to Agreement. The parties to this Agreement are:
(a) The City of Los Banos. A municipal corporation exercising general governmental functions and powers. The principal office of the City is located at 520 J Street, Los Banos, California 93635.
(b) Developer. Developer owns in fee or has an equitable interest in the Subject Property.· The principal office of Developer is 16663 Ventura Blvd., Encino CA 91436 .. (c) Landowner. From time to time, as provided in this Agreement, Developer may sell or otherwise lawfully dispose of a portion of the Subject Property to a Landowner who, unless otherwise released, shall be subject to the applicable provisions of this Agreement related to such portion of the Subject Property. . ...
170
Section 1.7. Project is a Private Undertaking. It is agreed among the parties that the Project is a private development and that the City has no interest therein except as authorized in the exercise of its governmental functions.
Section 1.S. Term of Aereement. This Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date of the Adopting Ordinance approving this Agreement. Pursuant to California Government · Code section 65865(b), this Agreement shall not become operative unless annexation proceedings annexing the Subject Property to the City are completed within two (2) years of the Effective Date of the Adopting Ordinance. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if. either (a) the annexation proceedings are terminated for any reason; or (b) the completion of the annexation (recordation of a Certificate of Completion) does not occur on or before two (2) years from the Effective Date, . which two (2) year period may be extended by the City Council.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, Developer or its successors shall have the right, upon ten (to) day's prior written notice to City, to terminate this Agreement prior to LAFCO's issuance of a Certificate of Completion of the annexation (and the running ' of all applicable statutes of limitations related thereto) if it determines in its sole discretion that it is in its best interest to do so, and, in such event, City agrees to withdraw the Resolution then pending before LAFCO.
Upon becoming operative, this Agreement shall continue in force for a period .of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date unless terminated as provided herein. Following the expiration of the term, or if sooner terminated, this Agreement shall have no force and effect, subject however, to post-termination obligations of Developer or Landowner, if any.
Section 1.9. Assignment and Assumption. . Developer shall have the right to sell, assign, or transfer this Agreement with all the rights, title and interests therein to any person, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement. The conditions and covenants . set forth in this Agreement and incorporated herein shall run with the land and the benefits and burdens shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties. Developer shall provide City with a copy of the Assumption Agreement. Express written assumption by such purchaser, assignee or transferee, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, of the obligations and other terms and conditions of this Agreement with respect to the Subject Property or such portion thereof sold, assigned or transferred, shall relieve the Developer selling, assigning or transferring such interest of such obligations so expressly assumed. Any such assumption of Developer's obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed to be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney if executed in the form of the Assumption Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, or such other form as shall be approved by the City Attorney.
Section 1.10. Covenants Running With the Land. Each and every purchaser, assignee or transferee of an interest in the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, shall be obligated and bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and shall be the beneficiary thereof and a party thereto, but only with respect to the Subject Property, or such portion thereof, sold, assigned or transferred to it. Any such purchaser, assignee or transferee shall observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of a Developer contained in this Agreement, as such duties and obligations pertain to the portion of the Subject Property sold, assigned or transferred to it. Provided however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, if any such sale, assignment or transfer relates to a completed building which has been approved by the City for occupancy, this Agreement shall automatically terminate. 171
Section 1.11. Amendment to Agreement (Developer and City). This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties in writing, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 65868, provided that: any amendment which relates to the term, permitted uses, density, intensity of use, shall require a noticed public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment. Unless otherwise provided by law, all other amendments may'be approved without a noticed public hearing.
Any amendment entered into between the City and the Developer shall require the signature of each owner of any portion of the Subject Property to the extent the amendment modifies this Agreement as to that other owner's property.
Section 1.12. Amendment to Agreement (Landowner and City). This Agreement may also be amended, subject to the provisions of Government Code section 65868, between a Landowner who has acquired a portion of the Subject Property from Developer and City as to the. portions of the Subject Property then owned by Landowner.
Any amendment entered into between the City and a Landowner shall require the signature of each Landowner of any portion of the Subject Property or the Developer to the extent the amendment modifies the Agreement as to that Landowner's or the Developer's property.
Section 1.13. Releases. Developer, and any subsequent Landowner, may free itself from further obligations relating to the sold, assigned, or transferred property, provided that the City Clerk receives a copy of the Assumption Agreement provided for in Section 1.9.
Section 1.14. Notices. Notices, demands, correspondence, and other communication to City and Developer shall be deemed given if dispatched by prepaid first-class mail to the principal offices of the parties as designated in Section 1.6. Notice to the City shall be to the attention of both the City Manager and the Director. Notices to subsequent Landowners shall be required to be given by the City only for those Landowners who have given the City written notice of their address for such notices. The parties hereto may, from time to time, advise the other of new addresses for such notices, demands or correspondence.
Section 1.15. Reimbursement for Agreement Expense of City. Developer agrees to reimburse City for reasonable and actual expenses over and above fees paid by Developer as an applicant for costs specifically incurred by City for the prep.aration of this Agreement, including recording fees, publishing fees, and reasonable staff, City Attorney, Special Counsel, and consultant costs not otherwise included within application fees then due and payable to the City.
Such reimbursement shall be paid to the City prior to execution of this Agreement by the City:
Section 1.16. Recordation of Agreement. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this.
Agreement to be recorded with the Merced County Recorder not later than ten (10) days following execution of this Agreement by the City. Developer hereby covenants that during the period following execution and the recording of this Agreement by the City, Developer shall not, without prior written approval by the City Attorney, cause or allow to be recorded against the 172
Subject Property any instrument affecting the priority, validity or enforceability of this Agreement.
Section 1.17. Applicable Law. This Agreement· shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Section 1.lS. Invalidity of Agreement/Severability. If this Agreement in its entirety is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, this Agreement shall automatically tetminate as of the date of fmal entry of judgment. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any federal or state statute, . which became effective after the Effective Date, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 1.19. Third Party Legal Challenge. In the event any legal action or special proceeding is commenced by any person or entity other than a party or a Landowner, challenging · this Agreement, the Entitlements or any approval subsequently granted by the City for the development of the Subject Property, the parties and any Landowner agree to cooperate with each other in good faith. City may elect to tender the defense of any lawsuit filed by. ·a third person or entity to Developer and/or Landowner(s) (to the extent the litigation, in part or in whole, seeks to overturn or invalidate this Agreement, the Entitlements or any subsequent approval granted for the Subject Property held by or granted to Developer and/or Landowner), and, in such event, Developer and/or such Landowner(s) shall hold .the City harmless from and defend the City from all costs and expenses incurred in the defense of such lawsuit, including; but not limited to; damages, attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation awarded to the prevailing party or parties in such litigation. For purposes of this section only, "City" shall include all employees, consultants and agents acting on behalf of the City. Neither party shall settle any such lawsuit without the consent of the other party. The City may elect to participate in the litigation, in which case the Developer and/or Landowner agree to reimburse the City for its litigation costs and fees, including the retention of outside legal counsel. It is the intent of the Parties that the City's participation not result in unnecessary duplication of legal services, but rather that the City's active involvement in the litigation be limited to supervising the preparation of the administrative record or discovery as applicable, monitoring of litigation, and responsive pleadings regarding issues which, in the sole opinion of the City, involve broader City concerns then those immediately affecting the Landowner and/or Developer. Upon written demand of the City, Developer and/or Landowner shall deposit with the City such sums as may be specified by the City as its estimated litigation costs and fees for the following thirty day period. Both parties shall act in good faith, and shall not unreasonably withhold consent to settle. In the event that . the City elects to settle a claim, and Developer refuses to also settle, City at its sole option may require Developer to post security in a form and amount reasonably acceptable to the:City, for the performance of Developer's duties under this section. If the Developer, within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice from City, fails to post this security, the Developer shall settle the claim on terms as previously approved by the. City.
Section 1.20. Fees. Developer shall be subject to all fees currently adopted by the City, including scheduled or periodic increases as provided for in the adopting ordinances or 173
resolutions ("Current Fees"). Developer shall pay, without protest or without challenge, Current Fees in effect at the time of the issuance of a requested permit or entitlement.
In addition, Developer agrees to pay any new fees adopted by the City, or the recalculation of existing fees ("New Fees") in effect at the time of the issuance of a requested building permit. Developer shall retain the right to challenge the New Fees as perinitted by law.
Section 1.21. Reserved Powers. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, including Section 2.1, and without limitation as to any other requirements or exceptions contained in this Agreement, the City shall retain the authority to take the following actions and apply the same to the Subject Property:
(a) The authority of the City Council to adopt regulations to protect the City and its citizens from an immediate adverse risk to health and safety. This shall include, but not be limited to, lack of sufficient sewer andlor water facilities, but not school facilities. (b) Adopt or increase utility charges in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; and
(c) Adopt a Finance and Implementation Plan as specified in Section 2.1 setting forth an Implementation Plan to provide for the payment of all costs for the public facilities and services necessary to serve the development. (d) As set forth in Section 1.20, increase and apply Current Fees, and adopt and apply New Fees.
(e) Land use regulations, ordinances, policies, programs, resolutions or fees adopted or undertaken by City in order to comply with state or federal laws, or regulations, provided that in the event that such state or federal laws or regulations prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provision or provisions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations.
(f) City land use regulations, ordinances, policies, programs or resolutions adopted after the Effective Date, which are in conflict with the City Laws, but the application of which to the development of the Subject Property has been consented to in writing by the Developer andlor the applicable Landowner by later separate document, which consent Developer andlor Landowner may withhold in their sole and exclusive discretion.
(g) In the event that the LAFCO imposes conditions on annexation which is, in the sole discretion of the City Council, unacceptable, the City shall have no responsibility to complete annexation.
Section 1.22. Waiver of Claims. Except as may be permitted by Section 1.20, Developer waives, as to the Subject Property only, any and all existing claims that may have 174
against the City, its agents, employees and consultants arising out of the adoption andlor application of development requirements and standards, impact fees, the adoption of this Agreement or approval of the Entitlements and all of the proceedings, acts or determinations made prior thereto.
ARTICLE 2
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Section 2.1. Limited Vested Right. During the term of and subject to the terms of this Agreement. the Developer's rights shall be vested only to density and intensity of use as set forth in the underlying zoning district.
(a) The City shall not approve any tentative subdivision maps, issue building permits, or grant any other development approvals or permits or entitlements unless the City approves the following:
(1) A Specific Plan for the entire Subject Property in accordance with Condition 1 of Exhibit "C". attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (2) A Finance and hnplementation Plan, in accordance with Condition 2 of Exhibit "C". attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (b) Upon approval of a Specific Plan and a Finance and hnplementation Plan, the Developer shall be vested in the Specific Plan for the term of the Agreement.
Section 2.2. Permitted Uses and Development Standards. The permitted uses, the density and intensity of use for the Subject Property shall be those set forth for the pre-zoning district regulations as set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance in effect on the date of approval of this Agreement.
Section 2.3. Application. Processing and Inspection Fees. Application fees, processing fees, and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the development pursuant to this Agreement, provided that such revised fees apply generally to similar private projects or works within City and are in compliance with State and federal law.
Section 2.4. Obligation and Rights of Mortgage Lenders. The holder of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument with respect to the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, shall not be obligated under this Agreement to construct or complete improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion, but, in the event said holder takes title to the Subject Property through foreclosure of a mortgage or a deed of trust, or deed-in-lieu of such foreclosure, said holder shall be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement which pertain to the Subject Property or such portion thereof in which it holds an interest. Any such holder who comes into possession of the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to a foreclosure of a mortgage or a deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Subject Property, or such portion thereof, subject to any pro rata claims for payments or charges against 175
the Subject Property, or such portion thereof, which accrue prior and subsequent to the time such holder comes into possession. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to permit or authorize any such holder to devote the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses and improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
DEFAULT
Section 3.1. General Provisions. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, failure or delay by either party or Landowner not released from this Agreement to perform any term or provision of this Agreement, shall constitute a default. In the event of alleged default or breach of any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the party alleging such default or breach shall give the other party or Landowner not less than sixty (60) days notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be cured. During any such sixty (60) day period, the party or Landowner charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or institution of legal proceedings.
Mer notice and expiration of the sixty (60) day period, if such default has not been cured or is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth in the notice, the other party or Landowner to this Agreement may, at his option, institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement or give notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code section 65868 and any regulations of the City implementing said Government Code section. Following notice of intent to terminate, or prior to instituting legal proceedings, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code sections 65865, 65867, and 65868 and City regulations implementing said sections by the City within thirty (30) calendar days.
Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the City and an additional 30-day period to cure, either party alleging the default by the other party or Landowner may institute legal proceedings or may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other party; provided, however, a Landowner may only give such notice with respect to such portion of the Subject Property in which Landowner owns an interest.
Section 3.2. Annual Review. City shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Developer and Landowner with the terms of this Agreement. Such periodic review by the Director, unless referred to the Planning Commission or City Council shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1.
Each said review shall be completed within sixty (60) days of the first meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council, respectively, at which such review is undertaken, unless said period is extended by mutual consent of City and Developer. Failure to complete said review within the prescribed period shall be deemed a finding of good faith substantial compliance.
Notice of such annual review shall include the statement that any review may result in amendment or termination of this Agreement. City may charge, and Developer shall pay a fee 176
for such annual review to defray the cost to the City to process and conduct such annual review.
City shall deposit in the mail or fax to Developer and/or Landowner a copy of all staff reports and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning contract performance at least seven (7) calendar days prior to such periodic review. The Developer or Landowner shall be entitled to appeal a determination of the Director to the Commission and then to the Council.
Any appeal must be filed within ten (10) days of the decision to the Director, or the Commission, as the case may be. Developer or Land owner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally and/or in writing regarding its performance under this Agreement before the Commission, Council, and/or Director, as the case may be.
Section 3.3. Developer Default Limited to PropertylEntity; Separate Obligations of Owners. Except as specified herein in Section 3.1, no default hereunder in performance of a covenant or obligation with respect to a particular portion of the Subject Property shall constitute a default applicable to any other portion of the Subject Property, and any remedy arising by reason of such default shall be applicable solely to the portion of Subject Property where the default has occurred. Similarly, the obligations of the Developer and Landowners shall be severable and no default hereunder in performance of a covenant or obligation by any. one of them shall constitute a default applicable to any other owner who is not affiliated with such defaulting owner, and any remedy arising by reason of such default shall be solely applicable to the defaulting owner and the portion of the Subject Property owned thereby.
Section 3.4. Default by City. In the event City does not accept, review, approve or issue necessary development permits or entitlements for use in a timely fashion as defined by this Agreement, or as. otherwise provided in this Agreement, or the City otherwise defaults under the terms of this Agreement, Developer and/or Landowner may give written notice thereof to the City and if not cured within sixty (60) days following receipt of such notice, Developer shall have all rights and remedies provided herein or' under applicable law, including without limitation the right to pursue actions for mandamus, specific performance, or injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the City, Developer and Landowner each waives any and all rights to seek monetary damages from any other party as a result of any breach or alleged breach of such other party's obligations hereunder.
In the event City is in default under the terms of this Agreement, any resulting delays in Developer's performance caused thereby shall not constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
Section 3.5. Cumulative Remedies of PartieslWaiver of Right to Damages. In addition to any other rights or remedies, City, Developer and any Landowner may institute legal or equitable proceedings to cure, correct or remedy any default, to specifically enforce any covenant or agreement herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of the provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the City, Developer and Landowner each waives any and all rights to seek monetary damages from the other party as a result of any breach or alleged breach of such other party's obligations hereunder.
Section 3.6. Enforced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party or Landowner hereunder shall 177
not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, State or federal laws, regulations, decisions or orders which conflict with this Agreement, or judicial or other governmental agency decisions or orders, directing the City, or which have the effect of requiring the City, to take actions or refrain from taking actions which conflict with the obligations under this Agreement. Any and all extensions of the time of performance shall be limited to thirty-six (36) months. This section 3.6 shall not apply to the twenty-four (24) month tenn within which this Agreement is required to take effect.
ARTICLE 4
TERMINATION
Section 4.1. Termination Upon Completion of Development. This Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of the term or when the Subject Property has been fully developed and all of the Developer's obligations in connection therewith are satisfied. Upon termination of this Agreement, the City shall record a notice of such termination in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit ''D''. This Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect as to any building, and the lot or parcel upon which such building is located, when it has been approved by the City for occupancy.
Section 4.2. Effect of Termination on Developer Obligations. Termination of this Agr~ment as to the Developer of the Subject Property or any portion thereof shall not affect arty of the Developer's obligations to comply with the City general plan and the terms and conditions of any applicable zoning, or subdivision map or other land use entitlements approved with respect to the Subject Property, any other covenants or any other development requirements specified in this Agreement to continue after the termination of this Agreement, or obligations to pay assessments, liens, fees, or taxes.
Section 4.3. Effect of Termination on City. Upon any termination of this Agreement, as provided for under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as to the Developer of the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, the entitlements, conditions of development, limitations on fees and all' other terms and conditions of thls Agreement shall no longer be vested hereby with respect to the Subject Property affected by such termination (provided vesting of entitlements, conditions or fees applicable to the Subject Property shall be governed by planning and zoning law) and the City shall no longer be limited, by this Agreement, to make any changes or modifications to such entitlements, conditions or fees applicable to such property.
ARTICLES
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Section S.l. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court for the County of Merced.
Section S.2. Waiver. A waiver by any party of any breach of any term, covenant or 178
condition herein contained or a waiver of any right or remedy of such party available hereunder at law or in equity shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained or of any continued or subsequent right to the same right or remedy. No party shall be deemed to have made any such waiver unless it is in writing and signed by the party so waiving.
Section 5.3. Completeness of Instrument. This Agreement, together with its specific references and attachments, constitutes all of the agreements, understandings, representations, conditions, warranties and covenants made by and between the parties hereto. Unless set forth herein, neither party shall be liable for any representations made express or implied.
Section 5.4. Supersedes Prior Agreements. It is the intention of the parties hereto that this Agreement shall supersede any prior agreements, discussions, commitments, representations or agreements, written or oral, between the parties hereto.
Section 5.5. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience in reference only and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement.
Section 5.6. Number and Gender. In this Agreement, the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and the singular includes the plural, the word "person" includes corporations, partnerships, firms or associations, wherever the context so requires.
Section 5.7. Mandatory and Permissive. "Shall" and "will" and "agrees" are mandatory. "May" is permissive.
Section 5.S. Term Includes Extensions. All references to the term of this Agreement or the Agreement Term shall include any extensions of such term.
Section 5.9. Successors and Assigns. All representations, covenants and warranties specifically set forth in this Agreement, by or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any or all of the parties hereto, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of such party, its successors and assigns.
Section 5.10. Modification. No modification or waiver of any prOVISIons of this Agreement or its attachments shall be effective unless such waiver or modification is in writing, signed by all parties, and then shall be effective only for the period and on the condition, and for the specific instance for which given.
Section 5.11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously and in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 5.12. Other Documents. The parties agree that they shall cooperate in good faith to accomplish the object of this Agreement and to that end, agree to execute and deliver such other and further instruments and documents as may be necessary and convenient to the 179
fulfillment of these purposes.
Section 5.13. Partial Invaliditv. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provision and/or provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.
Section 5.14. Controlling Law. The validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California.
Section 5.15. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each covenant and term a condition herein.
Section 5.16. Authority. All parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement in the names, titles and capacities herein stated and on behalf of any entities, persons, estates or·firms represented or purported to be represented by such entity(s), person(s), estate(s) or firm(s) and that all formal requirements necessary or required by any state and/or federal law in order to enter into this Agreement have been fully complied with. Further, by entering into this Agreement, neither party hereto shall have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which such party is obligated, which such breach would have a material effect hereon.
Section 5.17. Document Preparation. This Agreement will not be construed against the party preparing it, but will be construed as if prepared by all parties.
Section 5.18. Advice of Legal Counsel. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this agreement with its own legal counsel, and based up on the advice of that counsel, and freely entered into this Agreement.
Section 5.19. EstoPllel Certificate. Within thirty (30) days following any written request which either party may make from time to time, and upon payment of a fee to the City to reimburse the City for its reasonable expenses associated herewith, the other party to this Agreement shall execute an4 deliver to the requesting party a statement certifying that:
(a) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if there have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications; and
(b) there are not current uncured defaults under this Agreement or specifying the date, nature of any default and manner of cure.
This certificate may be executed by the City Manager, or his or her designee.
Section 5.20. Attorneys Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, which may be set by the 180
Court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled.
Section 5.21. Consent/Subordination. Unless waived in writing by the City Attorney, Developer shall furnish proof satisfactory to the City, prior to approval of the Agreement that all persons possessing a legal interest in the property have consented to the recording of this Agreement. Unless waived in writing by the City Attorney, the City shall require subordination by all lenders of record as a condition precedent to the City approval of the Agreement. The City shall have no duty to subordinate its interest in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the parties thereto on the dates set forth below.
CITY OF LOS BANOS
A municipal corporation
By:~ ________ _
Manuel Thomas Faria ill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
William A. Vaughn, City Attorney
c __ _
Alexis M. Gevorgian,
Managing Member
Dated. __________________ _
Dated. ________ __ _
Dated. _________________ _
Dated: I Z. - 2.:2 .. - 2-D 2..1
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
181
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
)
County of Lo~ ~'i\~~'e.s )
On \2e. t.e:«;'o~\ 'H-, 2011, before me, :So..~e>\> S~,()"'~, , a Notary 'Public, personally appeared \~~\~ c'"1 e..V QC9\ '" ,who proved to me on the baSis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose name~ <Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that aieJihe'/~ executed the same in ~r/their authorized capacity, and that by@her/theit:-signatureCsj-on the instrument the person~s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person~ acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. '
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ~ . p [SEAL]
182
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
)
County of )
On _, 20_, before me, , a Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity, and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature, ____________ _
[SEAL]
183
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
184
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF MERCED, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL ONE:
Lots 99,100 and 101, according to the map entitled "Miller & Lux's Subdivision of the lands at Los Banos, Merced County, California" filed November 28, 1890 in Book 2 of Official Plats, .