CITY OF MERCED
PLANNING & PERMITTING DIVISION
TYPE OF PROPOSAL: General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 (Planned Development #12)/Site Plan Review Permit #516/Conditional Use Permit #1274
INITIAL STUDY: #23-08
DATE RECEIVED: March 8, 2023 (date application determined to be complete) LOCATION: 1965 W. Olive Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 058-030-005
(SEE ATTACHED MAP AT ATTACHMENTS A)
Please forward any written comments by July 5, 2023 to:
Francisco Mendoza-Gonzalez, Associate Planner
City of Merced Planning & Permitting Division
678 West 18
th Street
Merced, CA 95340
209-385-6929
[email protected]
Applicant Contact Information:
Attn: Merced Security Storage
515 S. Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(408) 413-8869
[email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site consists of an approximate 6.02-acre parcel (APN: 058-030-005) located at 1965 W. Olive Avenue (Attachment A), generally loca ted on the north side of Olive Avenue, 725 feet east of Highway 59. The subject site has a General Plan designation of Commercial Office (CO), and a Zoning classification of Planned Development (P-D) #12. Th e subject site is generally surrounded by commercial/light industrial uses to th e west and south (across Olive Avenue), a small pocket park to the north (Old Fahrens Park), and single-family/multi-family homes to the east.
The applicant is requesting approval to develop a self-storage facility with approximately 440 storage units, and a long-term boat and recreationa l vehicle parking facility with approximately 170 spaces. The current General Plan designation of Commercial Office (C)O) is intended for professional offices, medical offi ces, and other professional serv ices. The parcel would remain singular (no parcel map), with vehicle access from one driveway along Olive Avenue.
ATTACHMENT 11
Initial Study #23-08
The proposed project would include a self-storage facility with approximately 440 storage units, and a long-term boat and recreational vehicle pa rking facility with approximately 170 spaces.
The applicant has provided a site plan, floor plans, and elevations for this proposal. The front (or southern) portion of the development along Olive Ave nue would be reserved for the self storage.
The elevations are shown at Attachment B whic h illustrates the proposed structures. The tallest structure would be the office which would be approximately 22 feet tall with the exterior consisting of terracotta tile roofi ng, walls with stucco finish with stone veneer columns, and storefront windows. The storage units would rang e in dimensions between 5 feet by 5 feet, and 10 feet by 25 feet. The storage units would have a metal finish and a sloped roof from 11 feet to 10 feet, and other similar angled heights. A 12-foot-tall block wall would be placed along the eastern property line between the project site and the homes to the east. The north and south property lines would be secured with a wrought iron perimeter fence. The southern portion of the project site would be secured with gates that re strict access. The northern portion of the subject site (approximately 4 acres) w ould be dedicated for long-term boat and recreational vehicle parking with approximately 171 parking stalls with spaces ranging in size between 10 feet by 28 feet, and 12 feet by 58 feet. The long-term parki ng stalls would consist of gravel or other impervious surface, but the driving aisles to sa id stalls would be paved with an impervious surface.
Project Location
The subject site is located within the northwest quadrant of Merced. The subject site is surrounded by commercial/light industrial uses to th e west and south (across Olive Avenue), a small pocket park to the north (Old Fahrens Park), and single-family/multi-family homes to the east. The table below identifies the surrounding uses:
Table 1 Surrounding Uses (Refer to Attachment A)
Surrounding
Land
Existing Use
of Land
Zoning
Designation
City General Plan
Land Use Designation
North Old Fahren’s Park
Low Density
Residential
(R-1-6)
Parks and Open Space
(P-OS)
South Walmart
(across Olive Avenue)
Planned
Development
(P-D #16)
Regional/Community
Commercial (RC)
East Blue Fire
Planned
Development
(P-D) #12
Light Industrial (IL)
West Single-Family Subdivision
Residential
Planned
Development (R-
P-D) #39
Low Density Residential
(LD)
1. INITIAL FINDINGS
A. The proposal is a project as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
Initial Study #23-08
B. The Project is not a ministerial or emergency project as defined under CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15369 and 15369).
C. The Project is therefore discretionary and subject to CEQA (Section 15357).
D. The Project is not Categorically Exempt.
E. The Project is not Statutorily Exempt.
F. Therefore, an Environmental Checklist has been required and filed.
2. CHECKLIST FINDINGS
A. An on-site inspection was made by this reviewer on June 8, 2023.
B. The checklist was prepared on March 8, 2023.
C. The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and its associated Environmental Impact Report [EIR (SCH# 2008071069)] were certified in January 2012. The document comprehensively examined the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of build-out of the 28,576-acr e Merced (SUDP/SOI ). For those significant environmental impacts (Loss of Agricultural Soils and Air Quality) for which no mitigation measures were availabl e, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Counc il Resolution #2011-63). This document herein incorporates by reference the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, the General Plan Program EIR (SCH# 2008071069), and Resolution #2011-63.
As a subsequent development project within the SUDP/SOI, many potential environmental effects of the Project have been previously considered at the program level and addressed within the General Plan and associated EIR. (Copies of the General Plan and its EIR are available for review at the City of Merced Planning and Per mitting Division, 678 West 18t h Street, Merced, CA 95340.) As a second tier environmental document, Initial Study #22-32 plans to incorporate goals and policies to implement actions of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan , along with mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, as mitigation for potential impacts of the Project.
Project-level environmental impacts and mitigation measures (if applicable) have been identified through site-specific review by City staff. This study also utilizes existing technical information contained in prior documents and incorporates this information into this study.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Will the proposed project result in significant impacts in any of the listed categories? Significant impacts are those that are substantial, or potentially substantial, changes that may adversely affect the physical conditions within the area af fected by the Project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesth etic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change rela ted to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. (Section 15372, State CEQA Guidelines.
Appendix G of the Guidelines contains examples of possible significant effects.) Initial Study #23-08
A narrative description of all “potentially significant,” “negative declaration: potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated,” and “less than significant impact” answers are provided within this Initial Study.
A. Aesthetics
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in northwest Merced, approximately one and a half miles northwest of Downtown and one mile northeast of Highway 99. Th e project site consis ts of an undeveloped lot totaling approximately 6 acres. The terrain is generally flat. The site is generally surrounded by commercial/light industrial uses to the west and south (across Olive Avenue), a park to the north (Fahrens Park), and single-family/multi-family homes to the east. These buildings and structures range in height, between 15 and 35 feet.
1) No Impact
No designated scenic vistas exist on the project site or in the project area. Therefore, no impacts in this regard would occur with this development. 2) No Impact
There are no officially designated State S cenic Highways or Routes in the project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources, such as rock outcroppings, trees, or historic buildings within a scenic highway. 3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The proposed Project would transform the site from a mostly undeveloped site to a fully developed site. Undevel oped lots tend to lead to concerns regarding weed abatement, waste drop-off, and general dilapidation. Th e proposed buildings, parking, and streets
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
A. Aesthetics. Will the Project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
99 2) Substantially damage scenic resources including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
9 9
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? 99
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? 99
Initial Study #23-08
would fully develop the site. The units would add architectural interest with the use of stucco, and stone veneers. Based on these factors, this impact is considered to be less than significant.
4) Less Than Significant
Construction of the proposed project and off-site improvements include new lighting on the buildings and throughout the site. This new lighting could be a source of light or glare that would affect the views in the area. Ho wever, the City of Merced has adopted the California Green Building St andards Code (CGBSC) as Section 17.07 of the Merced Municipal Code. As administered by the C ity, the Green Building Standards Code prohibits the spillage of light from one lot to another. This would prevent new glare effects on the existing buildings surrounding the project site.
B. Agriculture Resources
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Merced County is among the largest agriculture producing Counties in Calif ornia (ranked fifth), with a gross income of more than $4.4 billi on. The County’s leading agriculture commodities include milk, almonds, cattle and calves, chickens, sweet potatoes, and tomatoes.
1) Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within the City Limits of Merced. The California Department of Conservation prepares Important Far mland Maps through its Farmlands Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The system of classifying areas is based on soil type and
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Im pact
B. Agriculture Resources. Will the Project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agriculture?
9 9
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 99
3) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 99
4) Cause development of non-agricultural uses
within 1,000 feet of agriculturally zoned
property (Right-to-Farm)? 99
Initial Study #23-08
use. According to the Merced County Impor tant Farmlands Map, the project site is classified as “Vacant or Disturbed Land” . The conversion of this land from an undeveloped lot (not being used for agricultu ral purposes) to a developed urban parcel was analyzed as part of the Environmental Review for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan. The development of self-storage and boat/recreational vehicle long-term parking on “Vacant or Disturbed Land” that is not being used for agricultural purposes is considered to have less than significant imp act. Therefore, CEQA requires no further review.
2) No Impact
There are no Williamson Act contract lands in this area and the land is not being used for agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no impact.
3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Refer to Item #1 above.
4) No Impact
The nearest land being used for farming is located approximately one mile northwest of the subject site (within County jurisdiction) . The proposed development would not affect farming operations as the farm site is located on a separate parcel.
C. Air Quality
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), whic h includes the southern half of the Central Valley and is approximately 250 miles long an d an average of 35 miles wide.
The Coast Ranges, which have an average height of 3,000 feet, serve as the western border of the SJVAB. The San Emigdio Mountains, part of th e Coast Ranges, and the Tehachapi Mountains, part of the Sierra Nevada, are both south of the SJVAB. The Sierra Nevada extends in a northwesterly direction and forms the air basi n’s eastern boundary. The SJVAB is mostly flat with a downward gradient to the northwest.
The climate of the SJVAB is heavily influenced by the presence of these mountain ranges. The mountain ranges to the west and south induce winter storms from the Pacific Ocea n to release precipitation on the western slopes, producing a pa rtial rain shadow over the valley. A rain shadow is defined as the region on the leew ard side of a mountain where noticeably less precipitation occurs because clouds and precipitation on the windward side remove moisture from the air. In addition, the mountain ranges block the free circulation of air to the east and entrap stable air in the Central Valley for extended periods during the cooler months.
Winters in the SJVAB are mild and fairly humid, and summers are hot, dry, and typically cloudless. During the summer, a high-pressure ce ll is centered over the no rtheastern Pacific, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and steady northwesterly winds.
For additional information see Appendix A at Atta chment B for combined studies on Air Quality, and Green House Gas Emissions.
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
C. Air Quality. Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
99 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for O
3 precursors)? 99
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? 99
4) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 99
Impacts are evaluated below on the basis of both State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria and SJVAPCD significance criteria.
SJVAPCD’s thresholds for dete rmining environmental significan ce separate a project’s short- term emissions from long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are related mainly to the construction phase of a project. For this project, the long-term emissions ar e related primarily to household trips.
1) Less-than-Significant Impact
Thresholds of significance applied in this report are from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts” (GAMAQI) (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2015).
These thresholds define an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect. Project-related emission levels which exceed any of the thresholds of significance means the project-related effect will normally be considered significant. Project related emissions at or below the thresholds of significance means the project-related effect normally will be considered to be less than significant.
The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of projects. These Thresholds may be found in Table 1 of the Air Quality analysis at Appendix A. The significance thresholds presented in the SJVAPCD GAMAQI are base d on the attainment status of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants.
Because the air quality standards are set at co ncentrations that protect public health with Initial Study #23-08
an adequate margin of safety, these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks.
For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAP CD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. As shown on Tables 2 and 3 of the Air Quality Analysis at Attachment C, both the construction and operational emissions are below the thresholds of significance for the SJVAPCD air quality plans. 2) Less-than-Significant Impact
Although SJVAPCD does not have any quantitative cumulative significant criteria, air quality is cumulative in nature. CAAQS are predicated on past, present, and future emissions; therefore, if proj ect-related emission are found to have a less-than-significant impact in the near-term conditions, then cumulative impacts would also be less-than- significant. Project-related air quality impacts we re found to be less- than-significant in the near-term conditions; therefore, the projec t would not adversely affect regional air quality in the future. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3) Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction of the proposed project ma y expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of constructi on equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and e quipment). However, based on the findings of the Air Quality Analysis at Appendix A indicates the construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD construction threshold le vels. Additionally, the Analysis indicates that operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD threshold levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
4) Less-than-Significant Impact
Given the use of heavy equipment during c onstruction, the time of day heavy equipment would be operated, and the distance to the ne arest sensitive receptor, the project would not emit objectionable odors that would be ad versely affect a substantial number of people. Operation of the project would not emit odors. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have a less-t han-significant impact associated with odors.
This impact would be less than significant.
D. Biological Resources
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in northwest Merced, approximately one and a half miles northwest of Downtown and one mile northeast of Highway 99. The site is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the west and south (across Ol ive Avenue), a pocket park to the north (Old Fahrens Park), and single-family homes to the east. The project site does not contain any creeks, or other wetland areas on private property. Black Rascal Creek adjacent to the Old Fahrens Park is located north of the subject site outside of subject site’s boundary lines.
Initial Study #23-08
The general project area is located in the Cent ral California Valley eco- region (Omernik 1987).
This eco-region is characterized by flat, intens ively farmed plains with long, hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters (14-20 inches of precipita tion per year). The Ce ntral California Valley eco-region includes the Sacramento Valley to the north, the San Joaquin Valley to the south, and it ranges between the Sierra Nevada Foothills to the east and the Coastal Range foothills to the west. Nearly half of the eco-region is actively farmed, and about three-fourths of that farmed land is irrigated.
The biological resources evaluati on, prepared as part of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), does not identify th e project area as containing any seasonal or non-seasonal wetla nd or vernal pool areas. Given the adjacent, built-up, urban land uses/agricultural uses and major roadways, no form of unique, rare or endangered species of plant and/or animal life could be sustained on the subject site.
Initial Study #23-08
1) No Impact
The proposed project would not have any di rect effects on animal life by changing the diversity of species, number of species, redu cing the range of any rare or endangered species, introducing any new species, or leadi ng to deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat. Although the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan identifies several species of plant and animal life that exist within the City’s urban boundaries, the subject site does not contain any rare or endangered species of plant or animal life.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
D. Biological Resources. Would the Project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modification, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
9 9
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 9
9 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
9 9
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 99
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? 99
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? 9
9 Initial Study #23-08
2) Less-than -Significant Impact
The proposed project would not have any direct effects on ri parian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. The City General Plan identifies Bear, Black Rascal, Cottonwood, Miles, Fahrens, and Owens Creeks within the City’s growth area. The subject site is approxima tely 0.5 miles from Bear Creek. Black Rascal Creek is approximately 100 feet north of subject site. These creeks are Waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As previously mentioned, Black Rascal Creek is lo cated north of the subject site outside of subject site’s boundary lines. The proposal would have to comply with Merced Municipal Code Chapter 20.34 – Creek Buffers, which is intended to reduce the risks to property owners and the public from erosion and flooding, protect and enhance chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources in the City, minimize pollutants entering water bodies from urban stormwater runoff, and pr eserve riparian vegetation and protect vegetation fand protect wildlif e habitats and wildlife corri dors along natural drainage ways.
Any proposed “fill” of that waterway woul d be subject to permits from ACOE, CDFW, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No such “fill” or disturbance of the waterway is proposed as part of this devel opment. The City’s General Plan requires the preservation of the creek in its natural state. No riparian habitat identified in CDFW or USFW plans are present on the project site. Therefore, the Project would have a less- than-significant impact on riparian habitat.
3) No Impact
The project site would not have any direct effect on wetlands as no wetlands have been identified in the project area. As shown in item #1 above, the proposal would be required to comply with Merced Municipal Code Chapter 20.34 – Creek Buffers. 4) No Impact
The Project would not have any adverse eff ects on any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridor, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As shown in item #1 above, the proposal would be required to comply with Merced Municipal Code Chapter 20.34 – Creek Buffers. 5) Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not interfere with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as tree preservati on policy or ordinance. The City requires the planting and maintenance of street trees along all streets and parking lot trees in parking lots, but has no other tree preservation ordinances.
6) No Impact
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of a habitat conservation plan. There are no adopted Habitat C onservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, re gional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan for the City of Merced or Merced County.
Initial Study #23-08
E. Cultural Resources
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Merced area lies within the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people. The Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family which held a ll of the Cent ral Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur.
Merced County was first explored by Gabriel Moraga in 1806, when he named the Merced River, “El Rio de Nuestra Senra de la Merced.” Moraga’s explorations were designed to locate appropriate sites for an inland chain of missions. Moraga explored the region again in 1808 and 1810.
Archaeology
Archaeological sites are defined as locations containi ng significant levels of resources that identify human activity. Very little archaeological survey work has been conducted within the City or its surrounding areas. Creeks, drainage, and sloughs exist in the northern expansion area of the City, and Bear Creek and Cottonwood Creek pass through th e developed area.
Archaeological sites in the Central Valley are commonly located adjacent to waterways and represent potential for significant archaeological resources.
Paleontological sites are those that show evidence of pre-human existence. They are small outcroppings visible on the earth’ s surface. While the surface outcroppings are important indications of paleontological re sources, it is the geological formations that are the most important. There are no known sites within th e project area known to contain paleontological resources of significance.
Historic Resources
In 1985, in response to community concerns over the loss of some of the City’s historic resources, and the perceived thr eats to many remaining resources, a survey of historic buildings was undertaken in the City. The survey focused on pre-1941 districts, bui ldings, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, and cultural significance. The survey area included a roughly four square-mile area of the central portion of the City.
The National Register of Histor ic Places, the California Histor ical Landmarks List, and the California Inventory of Hi storic Resources identify several sites within the City of Merced.
These sites are listed on the Merced Historical Site Survey and are maintained by the Merced Historical Society. There are no listed historical sites on the project site.
According to the environmental review conduct ed for the General Plan, there are no listed historical sites and no known locations within th e project area that contain sites of paleontologic or archeological significance. The General Pl an (Implementation Action SD-2.1.a) requires that the City utilize standard practices for preserving archeological materials that are unearthed during construction, as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
E. Cultural Resources. Would the Project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5? 9
9 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? 99
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? 99
4) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? 99
1) Less-than-Significant Impact
The Project would not alter or destroy a ny known historic or archaeological site, building, structure, or object; nor would it alte r or affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict religious or sacred uses. According to the environmental review conducted for the General Plan, there are no listed historical sites and no known locations within the project area that contain sites of historical or archeological significance. The General Plan (Implementation Action SD-2.1.a) requires that the City utilize standard practices for preserving archeological materi als that are unearthed during construction, as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
2) Less-than-Significant Impact
The Project would not alter or destroy any known prehistoric or archaeological site, building, structure, or object; nor would it alte r or affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict religious or sacred uses. According to the environmental review conducted for the General Plan, there are no listed historical sites and no known locations within the project area that contain sites of historical or archeological significance. The General Plan (Implementation Action SD-2.1.a) requires that the City utilize standard practices for preserving archeological materi als that are unearthed during construction, as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
3) Less-than-Significant Impact
The Project would not alter or destroy a ny paleontological resour ce, site, or unique geological feature. According to the envi ronmental review conducted for the General Plan, there are no listed historical sites and no known locations within the project area that contain sites of paleontological signifi cance. The General Plan (Implementation Action SD-2.1.a) requires that the City u tilize standard practices for preserving archeological materials that are unearthed dur ing construction, as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
Initial Study #23-08
4) Less-than-Significant Impact
The proposed project would not disturb a ny known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cem eteries; nor would it alter or affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict religious or sacred uses . There are no known cemeteries in the project area. Excavation of the site would be needed to construct the proposed project, so it is possible that human remains would be discovered. However, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that if human remains are discovered during the construction phase of a development, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner must be notif ied. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will inform a most likely descendant. The descendant will then recommend to the landowner the appropria te method for the disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. Additionally, the City ’s General Plan (Implementing Action SD-
2.1.a) requires that the City utilize standard practices for preser ving archeological materials that are unearthed during construction, as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. By following the require ments of the Health and Safety Code and Compliance with the City’s General Plan, this potential impact would be less than significant.
F. Geology and Soils
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Merced is located approximately 150 miles southeast of San Francisco along the east side of the southern portion of the Great Vall ey Geomorphic Province, more commonly referred to as the San Joaquin Valley. The valley is a broad lowland bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east and Coastal Ranges to the west. The San Joaquin Valley has been filled with a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits from Jurassic to recent age. A review of the geological map indicates that the area around Merced is prima rily underlain by the Pleistocene Modesto and Riverbank Formations with Holocene alluvial deposits in the drainages. Miocene-Pliocene Mehrten and Pliocene Laguna Formation materials are present in outcrops on the east side of the SUDP/SOI. Modesto and Riverb ank Formation deposits are characterized by sand and silt alluvium derived from weathering of rocks deposited east of the SUDP/SOI. The Laguna Formation is made up of consolidated gravel sand and silt alluvium and the Mehrten Formation is generally a well consolidated andesitic mudflow breccia conglomerate.
Faults and Seismicity
A fault, or a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one si de have moved relative to those on the other side, are an indication of past seismic activity. It is assumed that those that have been active recently are the most likely to be active in the future, although even inactive faults may not be “dead.” “Potentially Active” faults are those that have been active during the past two million years or during the Quaternary Peri od. “Active” faults are those that have been active within the past 11,000 years. Earthquakes or iginate where movement or slippage occurs along an active fault. These movements generate shock waves that result in ground shaking.
Based on review of geologic ma ps and reports for the area, there are no known “active” or “potentially active” faults, or Al quist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone s (formerly referred to as a Special Studies Zone) in the SUDP/SOI. In order to deter mine the distance of known active Initial Study #23-08
faults within 50 miles of the Site, the computer program EZ-FRISK was used in the General Plan update.
Soils
Soil properties can influence the development of building sites, including site selection, structural design, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. Soil properties that affect the load-supporting capacity of an area include depth to groundwater, ponding, flooding, subsidence, shrink-swell potential, and compressibility.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Im pact
F. Geology and Soils. Would the Project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? 9
9 b) Strong seismic ground shaking? 99
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 99
d) Landslides?
99 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil?
99 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
9 9
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
99 Initial Study #23-08
1) Less than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within a mapped fault hazard zone, and there is no record or evidence of faulting on the project site (C ity of Merced General Plan Figure 11.1).
Because no faults underlie the project site, no people or structures would be exposed to substantial adverse effects related to earthquake rupture.
According to the City’s Merced Vision 2030 General Plan EIR, the probability of soil liquefaction occurring within the City of Merced is considered to be a low to moderate hazard; however, a detailed geotechnical engin eering investigation would be required for the project in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC).
There would be no exposure to any geological hazards in the project area.
Ground shaking of moderate severity may be expected to be experienced on the project site during a large seismic event. All building permits are reviewed to ensure compliance with the California Building Code (CBC). In addition, the City enforces the provisions of the Alquist Priolo Special Study Zones Act th at limit development in areas identified as having special seismic hazards. All new st ructures shall be designed and built-in accordance with the standards of the California Building Code.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
The City’s Merced Vision 2030 General Plan contains policies that address seismic safety.
Goal Area S-2: Seismic Safety:
Goal: Reasonable Safety for City Residents from the Hazards of Earthquake and Other Geologic Activity
Policies
S-2.1 Restrict urban development in all areas with potential ground failure characteristics.
The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Landslides generally occur on slopes of 15 pe rcent or greater. The project site’s topography is generally of sl opes between 0 and 3 percent, which are considered insufficient to produce hazards other than minor sliding during seismic activity.
Therefore, no hazardous cond itions related to seismic ground shaking would occur with the implementation of the Project. Additionall y, the implementation of the project would
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Im pact
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
99 Initial Study #23-08
not lead to offsite effects related to hazar ds related to seismic groundshaking, nor would any existing off-site hazards be exacerbated.
2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Construction associated with the proposed pr oject could result in temporary soil erosion and the loss of topsoil due to construction activities, in cluding clearing, grading, site preparation activities, and installation of the proposed buildings and other improvements.
The City of Merced enforces a Storm Water Management Program in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. All construction activities are required to comply with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Contro l Ordinance (MMC §15.50.120.B), including the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the discharge of sediment.
3) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Merced is located in the Valley area of Merced County and is, therefore, less likely to experience landslides than other areas in the County. The probability of soil liquefaction actually taking place anywhere in the City of Merced is considered to be a low hazard. Soil types in the area are not conducive to liquefaction because they are either too coarse or too high in clay content. According to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan EIR, no significant free face failures were observed within this area and the potential for lurch cracking and lateral spreading is, therefore, very low within this area. 4) Less-Than-Significant
Expansive soils are those possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when they dry) or swelling (when they become wet). Expansive soils can also consist of silty to sandy clay. The extent of shrinking and swelling is influenced by the environment, extent of wet or dry cycles, and by the amount of clay in the soil. This physical change in the soils can react unfav orably with building foundations, concrete walkways, swimming pools, roadways, and masonry walls.
Implementation of General Pl an Policies, adherence to the Alquist-Priolo Act, and enforcement of the California Building Code (CBC) Standards would reduce the effect of this hazard on new buildings and infrast ructure associated with the proposed development. This would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5) No Impact
The project site would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. However, the propos ed project would be served by the City’s sewer system. No new septic systems are allowed within the City Limits and any existing systems will need to be removed upon demolition of the current home on the site.
Initial Study #23-08
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Hazardous Materials
A substance may be considered hazardous due to a number of criteria, including toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. The term “hazardous material” is defined in law as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment.
Wildland and Urban Fire Hazards
Both urban and wildland fire hazard potential exists in the City of Merced and surrounding areas, creating the potential for injury, loss of life, and property damage. Urban fires primarily involve the uncontrolled burning of reside ntial, commercial, or industr ial structures due to human activities. Wildland fires affect grassland, brush or woodlands, a nd any structures on or near these fires. Such fires can result from either human made or natural causes.
Urban fires comprise the majority of fires in the City of Merced. The site is adjacent to undeveloped ag land which could be a source for a wildland fire. However, the City of Merced Fire Department has procedures in place to addr ess the issue of wildland fires, so no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Airport Safety
The City of Merced is impacted by the presence of two airports-Merced Regional Airport, which is in the southwest corner of the City, and Castle Airport (the former Castle Air Force Base), located approximately five miles northwest of the subject site.
The continued operation of the Merced Regional Ai rport involves various hazards to both flight (physical obstructions in the airs pace or land use characteristics wh ich affect flight safety) and safety on the ground (damage due to an aircraft accident). Growth is restricted around the Regional Airport in the southwest corner of th e City due to the noise and safety hazards associated with the flight path.
Castle Airport also impacts the City. Portions of the northwest part of the City’s SUDP/SOI and the incorporated City are within Castle’s safety zones. The primary impact is due to noise (Zones C and D), though small areas have density restrictions (Zone B2). The military discontinued operations at Castle in 1995. On e important criterion for deter mining the various zones is the noise factor. Military aircraft are designed solely for performance, whereas civilian aircraft have extensive design features to control noise.
Potential hazards to flight include physical obstr uctions and other land us e characteristics that can affect flight safety, which include: visual hazards such as distracting lights, glare, and sources of smoke; electronic interference with aircraft instruments or radio communications; and uses which may attract flocks of birds. In or der to safeguard an airport's long-term usability, preventing encroachment of objects into the surrounding airspace is imperative.
According to the Merced County Airport Land Us e Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located in any restricted safety zones for either airport, and no aircraft overflight, air safety, or noise concerns are identified.
Initial Study #23-08
Railroad
Hazardous materials are regularly shipped on th e BNSF and SP/UP Railr oad lines that pass through the City. While unlikely, an incident invo lving the derailment of a train could result in the spillage of cargo from the train in transpor ting. The spillage of hazardous materials could have devastating results. The City has little to no control over the types of materials shipped via the rail lines. There is also a safety concern for pedestrians along the tracks and vehicles utilizing at-grade crossings. The design and operation of at-g rade crossings allows the City some control over rail-related hazards. Ensuring proper gate operation at the cr ossings is the most effective strategy to avoid collision and po ssible derailments. The Atishon Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad is approximately 0.15 miles from the site and Union Pacific Railroad is over 0.85 miles away.
Public Protection and Disaster Planning
Hospitals, ambulance companies, and fire dist ricts provide medical emergency services.
Considerable thought and planning have gone into efforts to improve responses to day-to-day emergencies and planning for a general disaster response capability.
The City’s Emergency Plan and the County Hazar dous Waste Management Plan both deal with detailed emergency response proce dures under various conditions for hazardous material spills.
The City also works with the State Department of Health Services to establish cleanup plans and to monitor the cleanup of known hazardous waste sites within the City.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Would the Project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
99 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
9 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? 9
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? 9
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5) 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? 9
9 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? 99
7) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9
9 8) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires? 9
9 1) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use, storage, transport, and disposal of oil, gaso line, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials. The Project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state health and safety standards. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970). Compliance with these requirements would reduce the risk of hazards to the public to a less-than-significant level. 2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Construction on the project site would be revi ewed for the use of hazardous materials at the building permit stage. Implementation of Fire Department and Building Code regulations for hazardous materials, as we ll as implementation of federal and state requirements, would reduce any risk caused by a future use on the site from hazardous materials to a less than-significant-level.
A
PPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
The City of Merced Vision 2030 General Plan contains policies that address hazardous materials.
Goal Area S-7: Hazardous Materials
Goal: Hazardous Materials Safety for City Residents
Policies
S-2.1
Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials.
Implementing Actions:
Initial Study #23-08
7.1.a
Support Merced County in carrying out and enforcing the Merced County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
7.1.b
Continue to update and enforce local ordinances regulating the permitted use and storage of hazardous gases, liquids, and solids.
7.1.d Provide continuing training for hazardous materials enforcement and response personnel.
3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The nearest school is John C. Fremont Elem entary School, located on the southeast corner of S Street and W. 22 nd Street. The subject site is about 1 mile from this school.
There are no existing or proposed schools within ¼ mile of the site. Given the California Building Code protective measures require d during the construction process, this developments impacts would be less than signi ficant. Post-construction the site would be used for dwelling purposes only.
4) Less-Than-Significant Impact
No project actions or operations would result in the re lease of hazardous materials that could affect the public or the environment, a nd no significant hazard to the public or the environment would result with project implementation. This potential impact is less than significant.
5) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The project site is located about two miles northeast from the Merced Regional Airport.
The approximate 6-acre site is surrounded by existing reside ntial uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, or open space. Given the la nd use designation and surrounding land use, the potential impact is less than significant.
6) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The closest private airstrip to the site is approximately 9 miles away. There would be no hazard to people living or working on the project site. 7) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The proposed project will not adversely affect any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No additional impacts would result from the development of the project area over and above `those alre ady evaluated by the EIR prepared for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES:
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan contains policies that address disaster preparedness.
Goal Area S-1: Disaster Preparedness
Goal: General Disaster Preparedness
Policies
S-1.1
Develop and maintain emergency preparedness procedures for the City.
Initial Study #23-08
Implementing Actions:
1.1.a
Keep up-to-date through annual review the City’s existing Emergency Plan and coordinate with the countywide Emergency Plan.
1.1.b
Prepare route capacity studies and determine evacuation procedures and routes for different types of disasters, including means for notifying residents of a need to evacuate because of a severe hazard as soon as possible.
7.1.d Provide continuing training for hazardous materials enforcement and response personnel.
8) Less-Than-Significant Impact
According to the EIR prepared for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan , the risk for wildland fire within the City of Merced is minimal. According to the Cal Fire website, the Merced County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map shows the project site is designated as a “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA) wi th a Hazard Classification of “LRA Unzoned.”
The City of Merced Fire Department is the responsible agency for responding to fires at the subject site. The project site is served by Station #53 located on 800 Loughborough Drive (approximately 1 mile southeast from the project site).
The site is not near agricultural land that could be susceptible to wildland fires. The City of Merced Fire Department has procedures in place to address the issue of wildland fires, so no additional mitigation would be necessary. This potential impact is less than significant.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Water Supplies and Facilities
The City’s water supply system consists of 22 wells and 14 pumping st ations equipped with variable speed pumps that atte mpt to maintain 45 to 50 psi (pounds per square inch) nominal water pressure. The City is required to meet State Health pressure requirements, which call for a minimum of 20 psi at every service connec tion under the annual peak hour condition and maintenance of the annual average day demand plus fire flow, whichever is stricter. The project site would be serviced by the utilities within Olive Avenue.
Storm Drainage/Flooding
In accordance with the adopted City of Merced Standard Designs of Common Engineering Structures, percolation/detention basins are designed to temporarily collect runoff so that it can be metered at acceptable rates into canals and streams that have limited capacity. The project would be required to adhere to the Post Constr uction Standards for compliance with the City’s Phase II MS4 permit issued by the state of California.
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
H. Hydrology and Water Quality.
Would the Project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 99
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin? 9
9 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would: 9
9 a) result in a substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; 99
b) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite; 9
9 c) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; orPles 99
d) impede or redirect flood flows? 99
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
of pollutants due to project inundation? 99
5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? 9
9 1) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The Project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during constructi on or operation. In addition to compliance with standard construction provisions, the Proj ect shall be required to comply with the Merced Storm Water Master Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan, a nd obtain all required permits for water discharge. During project operations, the City has developed requirements to minimize the impact to storm water quality caused by development and redevelopment. The increase in impervious areas caused by development can cause an increase in the type and quantity of pollutant s in storm water runoff. Prior planning and design to minimize pollutants in runoff from th ese areas is an important component to storm water quality management. These standards are set forth in the City’s Post- Initial Study #23-08
Construction Standards Plan and provide guidance for post- construction design measures to ensure that storm water quality is maintained. Compliance with these requirements and permits would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
A
PPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES:
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan contains policies that address Water Quality and Storm Drainage.
Goal Area P-5: Storm Drainage and Flood Control
Goal: An Adequate Storm Drainage Collection and Disposal System in Merced Policies
P-5.1
Provide effective storm drainage facilities for future development.
P-5.2 Integrate drainage facilities with bike paths, sidewalks, recreation facilities, agricultural activities, groundwater recharge, and landscaping.
Implementing Actions:
5.1.a
Continue to implement the City’s Storm Water Master Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan and its control measures.
5.1.c Continue to require all development to comply with the Storm Water Master Plan and any subsequent updates.
2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The City of Merced is prima rily dependent on groundwater sources that draw from the San Joaquin aquifer. The City has 22 active well sites with one under construction, and 14 pumping stations, which provide service to meet peak hour urban level conditions and the average daily demand plus fire flows.
According to the City of Merced Water Master Plan, the estimated average peak water demand is 23.1 mgd.
The proposed project is estimated to use a pproximately 120 gallons of water per day (office for site). This would represen t 0.000519% of the estimated average daily water consumption. Although development of the si te would restrict onsite recharge where new impervious surface areas are created, all alterations to groundwat er flow would be captured and routed to the storm water perc olation ponds or pervious surfaces with no substantial net loss in recharge potential anticipated. This reduces this impact to a less- than-significant level.
3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The proposed project would result in modifications to the existing drainage pattern on the site. If required by the City’s Engineering Department, the project will be designed to capture all surface water runoff onsite and then drain into the City’s existing storm drainage system.
The project site is currently vacant and c onsists of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would create impervious surfaces over a large portion of the project site, thereby preventing precipitation from infiltrating a nd causing it to pond or runoff. However, Initial Study #23-08
stormwater flows would be contained onsite and piped or conveyed to the City’s stormwater system, there would be no potential for increased erosion or sedimentation.
Developed storm drainage facilities in the area are adequate to handle this minor increase in flows. The Project would not result in a s ubstantial alteration of drainage in the area, and no offsite uses would be affected by the proposed changes. All potential impacts are less than significant.
Regarding flood flows, a portion of the propos ed project is located within a floodway from the Black Rascal Creek to the north. This portion of the project would not have any buildings and be used for boat and recreati onal vehicle storage purposes. Within this floodway, the applicant would like to install a block wall along the eastern property line, and a rod iron fence along the northern, and western property lines. However, doing so would require a No Rise Certificate showi ng that the fence would not increase the flood heights. If not, the applicant would not be able to install any fencing within this area.
The southern portion of the project would be outside the floodway and dedicated for the self-storage facility. This portion of the project may alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but not in a manner that would resu lt in flooding. The site is currently mostly vacant and any construction on the site would alter the drainage pattern and reduce the absorption capability of the site. There are no streams or rivers that would be affected.
All storm runoff would be captured onsite an d conveyed through pipes to the City’s stormwater system. Any changes to the site would drain into the City’s existing storm drain system which would prevent any onsite or offsite flooding. This potential impact is less than significant.
4) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The proposed project is located approximate ly 80 miles from the Pacific Ocean, distant from any large lakes, and are within the inundation zones for Lake Yosemite or Bear Reservoir at an elevation ranging from approximately 173 feet above MSL. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the City of Merced is not subject to inundation by tsunami, seiche, or mudflow. This potential impact is less than significant. 5) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The proposed project would not obstruct or c onflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project would be required to comply with all City of Merced standards and Master Plan requirements for groundwater and water quality control. This impact is less than significant.
I. Land Use and Planning
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located within the City Limits of Merced and within its Specific Urban Development Plan and Sphere of Influence (SUDP/SOI).
SURROUNDING USES
Refer to Page 2 of this Initial Study and the map at Attachment A for the surrounding land uses.
Initial Study #23-08
Current Use
The project site is approximately 6 acres of undeveloped land locat ed on the north side of Olive Avenue, approximately 750 feet east of Highway 59.
The project site is currently has a Zoning classification of Planned Development (P-D) #12 and a General Plan designation of Commercial Office (CO). The existing land use designations for this site allows for medical and professional offices. The proposed land use amendment would transition the site with new planned development standards to allow for a self-storage facility and a long-term parking facility for boats and recreati onal vehicles. This would be achieved with the Site Utilization Plan Revision to Planned Development (P-D) #12 (along with Site Plan Review Permit #516), and the proposed Ge neral Plan designation of Bu siness Park (BP) with a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a live/work unit for the onsite manager.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. Land Use and Planning.
Would the Project:
1) Physically divide an established community? 99
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect? 99
1) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The project site is within the boundaries of the Merced City Limits. It would not physically divide the community as it is alr eady part of the City. This proposal does not include the creation of streets or barriers. This potential impact is less than significant. 2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The project site is currently has a Zoning classification of Pla nned Development (P-D) #12 and a General Plan designation of Offi ce Commercial (CO). The existing land use designations for this site would allow for medical and professional offices. The proposed land use amendment would transition the site with new planned de velopment standards to allow for a self-storage facility and a long term parking facility for boats and recreational vehicles. This would be achieved with the site utilization plan revision to Planned Development (P-D) #12 (along with Site Plan Review Permit #516), proposed General Plan designation of Business Park (BP), and a Conditional Use Permit for a live/work unit for the onsite manager. Business Park is similar to a hybrid of light industrial and office commercial. The subj ect site would be a buffer between the Initial Study #23-08
industrial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
J. Mineral Resources
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Merced does not contain any mine ral resources that re quire managed production according to the State Mining and Geology Board. Based on observed site conditions and review of geological maps for the area, economic deposits of precious or base metals are not expected to underlie the City of Merced or the project site . According to the California Geological Survey, Aggregate Availability in Calif ornia - Map Sheet 52, minor aggregate production occurs west and north of the City of Mer ced, but economic deposits of a ggregate minerals are not mined within the immediate vicinity of the SUDP/SOI. Commercial deposits of oil and gas are not known to occur within the SUDP/SOI or immediate vicinity.
According to the Merced County General Pl an Background Report (June 21, 2007), very few traditional hard rock mines exist in the County. The County’s mineral re sources are almost all sand and gravel mining operations . Approximately 38 square miles of Merced County, in 10 aggregate resource areas (ARA), have been cl assified by the California Division of Mines and Geology for aggregate. The 10 identified resource areas contain an estimated 1.18 billion tons of concrete resources with a pproximately 574 million tons in Western Merced County and approximately 605 million tons in Eastern Merced County. Based on available production data and population projections, the Division of Mi nes and Geology estimated that 144 million tons of aggregate would be needed to satisfy the pr ojected demand for construction aggregate in the County through the year 2049. The available supply of aggregate in Merced County substantially exceeds the current and projected demand.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
J. Mineral Resources. Would the Project:
1) 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? 9
9 2) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 9
9 Initial Study #23-08
1) No Impact
No mineral resources occur within City Limits, SUDP/SOI, or within the project site, so no impact.
2) No Impact
See #1 above.
K. Noise
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Potential noise impacts of the proposed projec t can be categorized as those resulting from construction and those from operational activities. Construction noise would have a short-term effect; operational noise would c ontinue throughout the lifetime of the project. Construction associated with the development of the project would increase noise le vels temporarily during construction. Operational noise associated with the development would occur intermittently with the continued operation of the proposed project.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise levels than other uses. Sensitive land uses can include residences, schools, nursing homes, hos pitals, and some public facilities, such as libraries. The noise level experienced at the receptor depends on the distance between the source and the receptor, the presence or absence of noi se barriers and other shielding devices, and the amount of noise attenuation (le ssening) provided by the interven ing terrain. For line sources such as motor or vehicular traffic, noise de creases by about 3.0 to 4.5A –weighted decibels (dBA) for every doubling of the distance from the roadway.
Noise from Other Existing Sources
Vehicular noise from Olive Avenue and Fahrens Park would be the primary existing noise source at the project site. The nearest railroad corridor is approximately 750 feet south from the project site. The site is surrounded by various residentia l properties that genera te operational noise on a daily basis. There are several co mmercial and industrial uses locat ed 200 feet east of the project site. The subject site is a buffer between the industr ial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east. The subject site currently has a land use designation reserved for medical and professional office. The approval of the land use changes would still act as a buffer between the industrial and residentia l designations with a Business Park General Plan designation which is somewhat of a hybrid between light industrial and office commercial.
According to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, noise exposure not exceeding 45 dB is considered to be a “normally acceptable” noise level for residential uses.
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
K. Noise. Would the Project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? 99
2) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? 9
9 3) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
9 9
1) Less Than Significant
Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would temporarily increase noise levels in the area during the construction period. Therefore, the noise from construction may be steady for a few months and then cease all together. Construc tion activities, including site preparation and grading, building constructi on, and sidewalk and street improvements would be considered an intermittent noise impact throughout the construction period. These activities could result in various effects on sensitive receptors, depending on the presence of intervening barriers or other insulating materials. The effects will be short term and would result in a less than significant impact.
Operational Noise
Operational noise would be the main noise s ource expected from the proposed project.
Traffic coming to and from the project site would generate the most noise. The subject site is a buffer between the industrial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east.
The approval of the land use change to Business Park would still act as a buffer between these two zones. The subject site has a land use designation reserved for medical and professional offices. The noise from the propos ed self storage, and long-term boat and recreational vehicle parking would be reduced by the proposed approximately 10-foot-tall block wall along the eastern property line be tween the subject site and residential properties to the east. Implementation of the Project would not lead to continued offsite effects related to noise generated by the Project. Given the noise from similar low industrial and commercia l zones near the subject site, th is potential impact is less than significant.
Initial Study #23-08
2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the gene ration of any ground borne vibration or noise. This is a less-than-significant impact.
3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The project site is located within 2 miles southeast from active areas of the Merced Regional Airport and approximately 5 miles east from the Castle Airport. The airstrip has a flight pattern that goes northwest/south east, which may fly directly over the project site, however, given the distance between the project site and the airports, there should be less-than-significant impact. Given its loca tion, the private airstrip should not pose a hazard to the project development. Therefore, no population working or living at the site would be exposed to excessive levels of aircra ft noise. This potential impact is less than significant.
L. Population and Housing
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would change the General Plan designation from Commercial Office (CO) to Business Park (BP) for a singular vacant parcel approximately 6-acres in size.
Expected Population and Employment Growth
According to the State Department of Fi nance population estimates for 2023, the City of Merced’s population was estimated to be 90,116. Population projections estimate that the Merced SUDP area will have a significant population of 159,900 by the Year 2030.
According to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan , the City of Merced is expected to experience significant population and employment growth by the Year 2030.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
L. Population and Housing.
Would the Project:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? 9
9 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 9
9 Initial Study #23-08
1) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Temporary construction-related jobs would result due to th e construction of the project, but it is unlikely that construction workers w ould need to relocate to Merced in order to work temporarily onsite. It is not anticipated that this project will create a large number of jobs causing an increase in population over the long term. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
There is only 1 live/work unit proposed for th is site, resulting in less-than-significant impact.
M. Public Services
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Fire Protection
The City of Merced Fire Department provides fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services from five fire stations throughout the ur ban area. Fire Station #53 is located at 800 Loughborough Drive approximately 1 mile from the project site. This Station would serve the proposed project.
Police Protection
The City of Merced Police Department provide s police protection for the entire City. The Police Department employs a mixtu re of sworn officers, non-sworn officer positions (clerical, etc.), and unpaid volunteers (VIP). The service standard used for planning future police facilities is approximately 1.37 sworn officers per 1,000 popul ation, per the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Schools
The public school system in Merced is served by three districts: 1) Merc ed City School District (elementary and middle schools) ; 2) Merced Union High School District (MUHSD); and, 3) Weaver Union School Distri ct (serving a small area in the sout heastern part of the City with elementary schools). The distri cts include various elementary schools, middle (junior high) schools, and high schools.
As the City grows, new schools will need to be built to serve our growing population. According to the Development Fee Justification Study for the MUHSD, Merced City Schools students are generated by new development at the following rate:
Initial Study #23-08
Table 6 Student Generation Rates
Commercial/Industrial
Category
Elementary (K-8)
(Students per 1,000 sq.ft.)
High School (9-12)
(Students per 1,000 sq.ft.)
Retail 0.13 0.038
Restaurants 0.00 0.157
Offices 0.28 0.048
Services 0.06 0.022
Wholesale/Warehouse 0.19 0.016
Industrial 0.30 0.147
Multi-Family 0.559 (per unit) 0.109 (per unit)
The proposed self-storage and long-term boat and recreational vehicle parking facilities are not a category from the above Table 6, however the closest category would be Wholesale/Warehouse as these uses typically include large storage areas (the proposed self-storage facility would likely generate less students as there are less employees compared to wholesale/warehouse). Based on the table above (using Wholesal e/Warehouse category), the 62,641 square foot storage facility would generate 12 K-8 students and 1 high school student.
1) Less Than Significant
a) Fire Protection
The project site would be served by Fire Station #53, located at 800 Loughborough Drive (approximately 1 mile from the pr oject site). The response fro m this station would meet the desired response time of 4 to 6 minutes, citywide, 90 percent of the time, within the financial constraints of the City. The proposed change in land use designation would not affect fire protection services, and no new or modified fire facilities would be needed.
Any changes to the building or site would be required to meet all requirements of the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
M. Public Services. Would the Project:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the following public services:
a) Fire Protection? 99
b) Police Protection? 99
c) Schools? 99
d) Parks? 99
e) Other Public Facilities? 99
Initial Study #23-08
California Fire Code and the Merced M unicipal Code. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any future impacts to a less than significant level.
At the time a building permit is issued, the developer would be required to pay impact fees according to the City Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). A portion of this fee goes to cover the city’s costs for fire protection such as fire stations, etc. In addition, the developer may be required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District for Services. This would result in an assessment paid with property ta xes in which a portion of the tax would go to pay for fire protec tion services. Compliance with all Fire, Building, and Municipal Code requirements as well as paym ent of the Public Facility Impact Fees, and annexation into the City’s CFD for services would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Police Protection
The site would be served by the City Police Department. The development of the vacant project site could result in more calls to th e site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require any new or modified police facilities.
The same requirements for paying Public Facility Impact Fees and potentially annexation into the City’s Community Facilities District for Services would apply with a portion of the fees and taxes collected going toward th e costs for police protection. Therefore, this potential impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. c) Schools
The project site is located within the boundari es of the Merced City School District and Merced Union High School District. Based on the table and discussion provided in the “Settings and Description” section above, the proposed development would likely generate additional students to the school system. As appropriate, the developer would be required to pay all fees due under the Ler oy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1988.
Once these fees are paid, the satisfaction of the developer of his statutory fee under California Government Code §65995 is deemed “full and complete mitigation” of school impacts. This potential impact is less than significant. d) Parks
The old Fahrens Park (a small pocket park) is located directly north of the site. This storage facility may slightly increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks.
Payment of the fees required under the Pub lic Facilities Financi ng Plan (PFFP) as described above would be required at time of building permit issuance to help fund future parks and maintenance of existing parks would be required at the building permit stage.
The payment of fees would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. e) Other Public Facilities
The development of the Project could impact the maintenance of public facilities and could generate impacts to othe r governmental services. Pa yment of the fees required under the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) as described above would mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.
Initial Study #23-08
N. Recreation
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Merced has a well-developed network of parks and recreation facilities. Several City parks and recreation facilities are located within a one-mile radius of the project site.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
N. Recreation. Would the Project:
1) Increase the use of neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? 99
2) Does the project include recreational facilities
or requ ire the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? 99
1) Less the Significant Impact
Development of the Project may increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks.
However, payment of the required development fees at the building permit stage would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 2) No Impact
The Project does not include recreational f acilities and is not responsible for the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities.
O. Transportation/Traffic
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Roadway System
The project site is located in northwest Merced, approximately one and a half miles northwest of Downtown and one mile northeast of Highway 99. The project site consists of an undeveloped lot totaling approximately 6 acres. The project site fronts an arterial road (Olive Avenue), with the nearest north-south roads being Stat e Route 59 (expressway) and Loughborough Drive (collector road) both designed to carry large volumes of traffic traversing through a large portion of the community. State Route 59 has access to Highway 99 that connects Merced with other regional communities throughout the State.
Initial Study #23-08
Transit Service
The Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County has jurisdiction over public transit in Merced County and operates The Bus. The Bus pr ovides transportation fo r residents traveling within Merced and outside the City within neighboring communities such as Planada, Atwater, and Livingston.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Senate Bill (SB) 743 directs the Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new guidelines for assessing transportation-related impacts that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transporta tion networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources C ode Section 21099[b][1]). Th ese new guidelines will replace automobile delay, as de scribed through level of service (LOS), with more appropriate criteria and metrics based on tr avel demand, such as “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]). The State CE QA Guidelines are expected to be amended to include guidance for measuring travel dema nd and to recommend that delays related to congestion no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA (OPR 2016).
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) a dvisory suggests that the VMT contribution of small projects need not be consid ered significant. OPR suggests th at agencies can find projects generating fewer than 110 vehicles trips a day to be less than significant. The Olive Avenue Mini-Storage project is comprised of land uses estimated to generate 74 vehicle trips per day. As this trip generation estimate falls below the 110 daily trip threshold identified by OPR the proposed project qualifies as a “small project” that can be assumed to have a less than significant impact on regional VMT.
For additional information see Appendix B at Attachment D for the study on Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
O. Transportation/Traffic.
Would the project:
1) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
9 9
Initial Study #23-08
2) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
9 9
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
9 4) Result in inadequate emergency access?
9 1) Less-than-Significant Impact
The existing system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in this area include sidewalks and Class 1 bike paths, but pede strians and bicyclists use pa ved shoulders elsewhere. A sidewalk is present along the project’s Oliv e Avenue frontage, and a Class 1 trail is existing along State Route 59 north of O live Avenue. Recent Ca ltrans improvements have included high visibility crosswalks at the intersection of Olive Avenue/Santa Fe Drive and State Route 59. The proposed mini storage would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 2) Less-than-Significant Impact
The project would be constructed as an infill development surrounded by existing adequate infrastructure. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) presented in the publication Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition (2021), calculates the project to
generate 74 trips on a daily basis, with five trips in the a. m. peak hours, and eight trips in the p.m. peak hours. The project would not re sult in a change in air traffic patterns, including air traffic associated with any airports.
As previously described in this section, a VM T analysis was prepared for this project by KDA. Based on guidance provided by OPR, bot h the self-storage facility would be screened out as a small project and not require further VMT analysis. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Details regarding the criteria provided by OPR can be found in the traffic analysis at Appendix B.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 alternat ive modes of transportation are being assessed. Route M1 has a 30-minute headway be tween approximately 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. during weekdays. This route operates along:
x State Route 59 north and south of Olive Avenue
Initial Study #23-08
x Olive Avenue east of Loughborough Drive
x Loughborough Drive south of Olive Avenue
Route M2 has a 30-minute headway between approximately 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. during weekdays. This route operates along Loughborough Drive north and south of Olive Avenue. The Amtrak (passenger tr ain service) is located within 1.5 miles providing services to the greater California area and connections to travel across the county. The closest airport is Merced Regi onal Airport, located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site.
3) No Impact
The project site is surrounded by mostly deve loped lots along a developed arterial road (Olive Avenue). The proposal does not require changes to the existing street network.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
4) Less-than-Significant Impact
The subject site is an approximate 6-acre parcel on mostly developed parcels along an arterial road (Olive Avenue). There is currently no missing infrastructure of roads or utilities between the subject site and City infrastructure. The Fire and Police departments reviewed this proposal and are not reques ting additional access points to this site.
Therefore, project construction and operati on would not pose a signi ficant obstacle to emergency response vehicles. This impact on emergency access would be less than significant.
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
P. Water
The City’s water system is composed of 22 groundwater production wells located throughout the City, and approximately 350 miles of main lines. Well pump operators ensure reliability and adequate system pressure at a ll times to satisfy customer dema nd. Diesel powered generators help maintain uninterrupted operations during power outages. The City of Merced water system delivers more than 24 million gallons of dr inking water per day to approximately 20,733 residential, commercial, and industrial customer locations. The City is required to meet State Health pressure requirements, which call for a minimum of 20 psi at every service connection under the annual peak hour cond ition and maintenance of the a nnual average daily demand plus fire flow, whichever is stricter. The City of Merced Water Division is operated by the Public Works Department.
The City of Merced’s wells have an average de pth of 414 feet and range in depth from 161 feet to 800 feet. The depth of these wells would suggest that the City of Merced is primarily drawing water from a deep aquifer associated with the Mehrten geological formation. Increasing urban demand and associated population growth, along with an increased shift by agricultural users from surface water to groundwater and prol onged drought have resulted in declining groundwater levels due to overdra ft. This condition was recognized by the City of Merced and Initial Study #23-08
the Merced Irrigation District (MID) in 1993, at which time the two entities began a two-year planning process to ensure a sa fe and reliable water supply for Eastern Merced County through the year 2030. Integrated Regional Water Planning continues today through various efforts.
Wastewater
Wastewater (sanitary sewer) collection and treatment in the Merced urban area is provided by the City of Merced. The wastewater collection system handles wastewater ge nerated by residential, commercial, and industrial uses in the City.
The City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), locat ed in the southwest part of the City about two miles south of the airport, has been periodically expanded and upgraded to meet the needs of the City’s growing population and new industry. Th e City’s wastewater treatment facility has a capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd); with an average flow of 8.5 mgd. The City has recently completed an expansion project to incr ease capacity to 12 mgd and upgrade to tertiary treatment with the addition of filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. Future improvements would add another 8 mgd in capacity (in increments of 4 mgd), for a total of 20 mgd. This design capacity can support a population of approxima tely 174,000. The collection system will also need to be expanded as development occurs.
Treated effluent is disposed of in several ways depending on the time of year. Most of the treated effluent (75% average) is discharg ed to Hartley Slough throughout the year. The remaining treated effluent is delivered to a land application area and the on-site City-owned wetland area south of the treatment plant.
Storm Drainage
The Draft City of Merced Storm Drainage Master Plan addresses the collection and disposal of surface water runoff in the City’s SUDP. The study addresses both the collection and disposal of storm water. Systems of storm dr ain pipes and catch basins are la id out, sized, and costed in the plan to serve present and projected urban land uses.
It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that utilities, including storm water and drainage facilities, are installed in compliance with City regulations and other applicable regulations.
Necessary arrangements with the utility compan ies or other agencies will be made for such installation, according to the specifications of the governing agency and the City [(Ord. 1342 § 2 (part), 1980: prior code § 25.21(f)).] The disposal sy stem is mainly composed of MID facilities, including water distribution canals and laterals, drains, and natural channels that traverse the area.
The City of Merced has been involved in deve loping a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to fulfill requirements of storm water discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) operators in accordance with Se ction 402(p) of the Fe deral Clean Water Act (CWA). The SWMP was developed to also comply with General Permit Number CAS000004, Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ.
Solid Waste
The City of Merced is served by the State Route 59 Landfill and the State Route 59 Compost Facility, located at 6040 North Highway 59. The County of Merced is the contracting agency for landfill operations and ma intenance, as the facilities ar e owned by the Merced County Association of Governments. The City of Merced provides services for all refuse pick-up within Initial Study #23-08
the City limits and franchise hauling companies collect in the unincorporated areas. In addition to these two landfill sites, there is one privat e disposal facility, the F lintkote County Disposal Site, at State Route 59 and the Merced River. Th is site is restricted to concrete and earth material.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Im pact
P. Utilities and Service Systems.
Would the Project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects? 99
2) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
99 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? 9
9 4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or oth erwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 99
5) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? 99
1) Less Than Significant Impact
The City’s current water and wastewater system is capable of handling this project within the City of Merced. There is are existi ng sewer and water lines along Olive Avenue, which would be extended to go through the pr oject site. No significant environmental impacts would result from connecting to the line. This potential impact is less than significant.
Initial Study #23-08
2) Less Than Significant Impact
No new water facilities are needed for this project. The existing water system is sufficient to serve the development. Potential impacts are less than significant. 3) Less Than Significant Impact
Refer to item 1 above.
4) Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Merced uses the State Route 59 Landfill. Sufficient capacity is available to serve the future project. According to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan DEIR, the landfill has capacity to serve the City th rough 2030. Potential impacts are less than significant.
5) Less Than Significant Impact
All construction on the site woul d be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including recycling. Potential impacts are less than significant.
Q. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Q. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code § 21074
as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
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 section
5020.1(k), or
99 Initial Study #23-08
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 § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
99 Impact Analysis
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and sc ope 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 section 5020.1(k)?
ii. A resource determined by the lead agen cy, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
As stated in the Cultural Resources Section of this Initial Study, improvements associated with the project include site excavation, gr ading, paving, and constr uction of buildings.
The areas of the project subject to demolition and construction facilities are likely to have been subject to ground disturbance in the pa st. No tribal resources are known to have occurred or have been identified at the project site or in the vicinity of the project site.
However, as noted in the Cultural Resour ces Section, implement ation of Mitigation 0HDVXUHV &8/ဨ DQG &8/ဨ ZRXOGSURWHFW SUHYLRXVO\ XQUHFRUGHG RU XQNQRZQ FXOWXUDO resources, including Native American artif acts and human remains, should these be encountered during project construction.
In addition, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 provides for consultation between lead agencies and Native American tribal organizations dur ing the CEQA process. Since AB 52 was enacted in July 2015, the City has not been contacted by any California Native American tribes requesting that they be notified when projects are proposed in Merced. No tribes have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1.
Therefore, it is assumed that no Tribal Cultural Resources would be adversely affected by the project. As a result, no impact would occur.
Initial Study #23-08
R. Wildfire
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Both urban and wildland fire hazard potential exists in the City of Merced and surrounding areas, creating the potential for injury, loss of life, and property damage. Urban fires primarily involve the uncontrolled burning of reside ntial, commercial, or industr ial structures due to human activities. Wildland fires affect grassland, brush or woodlands, a nd any structures on or near these fires. Such fires can result from either human made or natural causes.
Urban fires comprise the majority of fires in the City of Mer ced. The site is surrounded by urban uses. The City of Merced Fire Department ha s procedures in place to address the issue of wildland fires, so no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
R . W i l d f i r e . If located in or near stat
responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would
the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? 9
9 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 9
9 c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment? 9
9 d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes? 9
9 Impact Analysis
Would the project:
Initial Study #23-08
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project does not include the construction of new roadways or changes to existing roads. The project would also be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code. As such, the proj ect would not impact an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other facto rs, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentr ations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not located in any fire hazard zone. The ar eas surrounding the project site are mostly developed, urban land.
There is a low potential for wildland fires within these parameters. Additionally, the California Building Code and the California Fire Codes work together to regulate building construction and related items such as the care of vacant lots and the storage of flammable liquids.
To provide effective fire prevention activities for low hazard occupancies, the Fire Department conducts seasonal hazard removal programs (primarily weed abatement).
The City of Merced employs a weed abatement program, which requires property owners to eliminate flammable vegeta tion and rubbish from their properties. Each property within the City is surveyed each spring and notices are sent to the property owners whose properties have been id entified to pose a fire risk. Sin ce inception of this program in 1992, grass or brush related fire s within the City have been greatly reduced. A “bulky item” drop off station has been opened near Highway 59 and Yosemite Avenue. Further, staging areas, building areas, a nd/or areas slated for devel RSPHQWXVLQJVSDUNဨSURGXFLQJ equipment are cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that could serve as fuel for combustion; impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of asso ciated 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? The project would be required to repair/r eplace any missing or damaged infrastructure along their property frontage. However, th e on-going maintenance of roadways would fall to the City. All other infrastructure or utilities exist in the area. No additional infra- structure or on-going maintenance would be re quired that would cause an impact to the environment. This impact is less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project site and surrounding area is relativ ely flat with no risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Therefore, there is no impact.
Initial Study #23-08
S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, cl assified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere is ab sorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. Infrared radiation is absorbed by GHGs; as a result, infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.
This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse eff ect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere natura lly, are released by natural sources and anthropogenic sources, and are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The following GHGs are widely ac cepted as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change and are relevant to the project: carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane, and nitrous oxide.
Emissions of CO 2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane is the main component of natural gas and is associated with agricultural practices and landfills.
Nitrous oxide is a colorless GHG that resu lts from industrial processes, vehicle emissions, and agricultural practices.
Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO 2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas in absorbing infrared radiation and the length of time the gas remains in the atmosphere (i.e., its atmospheric lifetime). The reference gas for GWP is CO
2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP of 1. The other
main GHGs that have been attributed to human activity include methane, which has a GWP of 28, and nitrous oxide, which has a GWP of 265 (IPCC 2013). For example, 1 ton of methane has the same contribution to th e greenhouse effect as approximately 28 tons of CO 2. GHGs with lower emissions rates than CO 2 may still contribute to climate change, because they are more effective than CO 2 at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation (i.e., they have hi gh GWPs). The concept of CO 2-equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different GWP potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation.
The project applicant provided an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas study for the proposed project which was prepared by KDA. (Appendix A at Attachment C). The study analyzed the emissions associated with the proposed self-storage facility and long-term vehicle parking. The City of Merced has not developed or adopted a CEQA threshold for determining the significance of GHG emi ssions at the project-level. The SJVAPCD document Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissi on Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2009) presents a tiered approach to analyz ing the significance of project-related GHG emissions. This approach was used in the analysis provided at Appendix A at Attachment C.
For additional information see Appendix A at Attachment C for combined studies on Air Quality and Green House Gas Emissions.
Initial Study #23-08
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse ga s emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? 9
9 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? 9
9 1) Less -than-Significant with Mitigation
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for protecting public health and we lfare through the administration of federal and state air quality laws and policies. In December 2009, SJVAPCD adopted the Final Staff Report Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impac ts under the California Environmental Quality Act (SJVAPCD 2009). SJVAPCD also developed guidance for land-use agencies to address GHG emission impacts for new de velopment projects. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction pl an or GHG mitigation program would have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.
Projects implementing best performance st andards and reducing project-specific GHG emissions by at least 29 percent compared to the business-as-usual condition would have a less-than-significant individual and cumu lative impact on global climate change under this guidance. However, models used to estimate GHG emissions now include some of the statewide measures that previously would have been used to evaluate this 29 percent reduction performance standard, so this particular method of comparison is out of date.
To establish the context in which to consider the project’s GHG emissions, this analysis used guidance from the adjacent Sacramen to Metropolitan Air Qu ality Management District (SMAQMD) to determine significance. In 2014, SMAQMD adopted a significance threshold for GHG e missions consistent with th e goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32: 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO
2e per year for constructi on-related and operational
emissions (SMAQMD 2014). This significance threshold was developed to assess the consistency of a project’s emissions with the statewide framework for reducing GHG emissions.
The impacts associated with GHG emissions ge nerated by the project are related to the emissions from short-term construction and operations. Off-road equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes during constr uction of the project would generate GHG Initial Study #23-08
emissions. Emissions generated by the project during operations are related to indirect GHG emissions associated with residential uses.
GHG emissions associated with construction of the project are short-term and will cease following completion of construc tion activity. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may ha ve a significant impact on the environment. Table 4 provides an estimate of project related GHG emission during the construction year and during operation. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable BPS strategies to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The following BPS strategies are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing GHG emissions generated by the project:
The following measure numbers, names and descriptions are from the SN APCD document Final Staff Report - Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA - Appendix J: GHG Emission Reduction Measures - Development Projects (San Joaquin Valley Air Poll ution Control District 2009b).
The measures were selected as those considered applicable to the Olive Avenue Mini-Storage project, based on the project location and type of land use.
Initial Study #23-08
x SJVAPCD Measure #5 - Pedestrian Network. The
project will provide a pedestrian access network that
internally links all uses and connects to existing external streets and pedestrian facilities. Existing facilities are defined as those facilities th at are physically constructed and ready for use prior to the first 20% of the project's occupancy permits being granted.
x SJVAPCD Measure #6 - Pedestrian Barriers
Minimized. Site design and building placement will
minimize barriers to pedestrian access and
interconnectivity. Physical barri ers such as walls, berms, landscaping, and slopes be tween residential and
nonresidential uses that imped e bicycle or pedestrian
circulation will be eliminated. Barriers to pedestrian
access of neighboring fac ilities and sites will be
minimized. This measure is not meant to prevent the
limited use of barriers to ensure public safety by
prohibiting access to hazardous areas. This measure is not meant to prevent features n eeded to securely operate a mini-storage facility.
x SJVAPCD Measure #7 - Bus Shelter for Existing
Transit Service. Merced Regional Transit System The
Bus Route Ml - Merced We st - provides bus service
with one-half hour headways. A bus stop for Route Ml is located at the Walmart store at Olive Avenue and
Loughborough Drive, directly s outh of the project site.
The project will provide safe and convenient
bicycle/pedestrian access to the bus stop and provides essential transit stop improve ments (i.e., shelters, route information, benches, and lighting).
x
SJVAPCD Measure #25 - Light-Colored/High-Albedo Roof
Materials. The project will install light-
colored/high/albedo roof materi als on the portion of the project containing climate -controlled units. Light-
colored/high/albedo roof mate rials reflect more of the sun's rays, decreasing the amount of heat transferred into a building.
x
SJVAPCD Measure #29 - Non-Roof Surfaces. The project
will provide shade (within 5 years) and/or use light-
colored/high-albedo materials (r eflectance of at least 0.3) and/or open grid pavement for at least 30% of the site's Initial Study #23-08
non-roof impervious surfaces, including parking lots,
walkways, plazas, etc.; OR use an open-grid pavement
system (less than 50% impervious) for a minimum of 50%
of the parking lot area. Unshaded parking lot areas,
driveways, fire lanes, and other paved areas will have a minimum albedo of 0.3 or greater.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would implement various BPS strategies recommended by the SN APCD that are applicable to the project to reduce GHG emissions. Over all, the mitigated project would implement GHG reduction strategi es in compliance with the SN APCD and, therefore, would not be a significant source of GHG emissions 2) Less-than-Significant Impact
In 2006, California enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq.). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to ach ieve reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. It requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
In 2008 and 2014, the California Air Resour ces Board (ARB) approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) and the first update to the Cl imate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, respectively (ARB 2008; ARB 2014). In 2016, the state legislature passed Se nate Bill SB 32, which established a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. In response to SB 32 and the companion legislation of AB 197, ARB appr oved the Final Proposed 2017 Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Ac hieving California’s 2030 GHG Target in November 2017 (ARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan draws from the previous plans to present strategies to reaching California’s 2030 GHG reduction target. The project would comply with any mandate or standards set forth by an adopted Scoping Plan Update effecting construction activities and operations.
In 2012, the City of Merced adopted the Merced Climate Action Plan to address the reduction of major sources of GHG emissions . The climate action plan established an emissions target of 1990 levels by 2020, comme nsurate with the State of California’s target (City of Merced 2012). To meet this goal, the City adopted values, goals, and strategies to reduce emissions. Goals of the plan include:
x enhanced mobility of all transportation modes;
x sustainable community design;
x water conservation and technology;
x protection of air resources;
x waste reduction;
x increased use of renewable energy sources;
x building energy conservation; and,
x public outreach and involvement.
Initial Study #23-08
The project would be consistent with the goals of the Merced Climate Action Plan.
As mentioned above, the proj ect would not exceed emissions thresholds adopted by SMAQMD and would be consistent with the applicable requirements of the Merced Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would not c onflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant. For additiona l information see Appendix A at Attachment C. This impact would be less than significant.
T. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
T. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Would the Project:
1) Have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? 9
9 2) Have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probably future projects?) 9
9 3) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
9 9
1) Less-Than-Significant Impact
As previously discussed in this document, the Project does not have the potential to adversely affect biological resources or cultu ral resources, because such resources are lacking on the project site, and any poten tial impacts would be avoided with implementation of the mitigation measures and other applicable codes identified in this Initial Study #23-08
report. Also, the Project w ould not significantly change th e existing urban setting of the project area. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. 2) Less-Than-Significant Impact
The Program Environmental Impact Report conducted for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, the General Plan Program EIR (SCH# 2008071069), has recognized that future development and build-out of the SUDP/SOI will result in cumulative and unavoidable impacts in the areas of Air Quality and Loss of Agricultural Soils. In conjunction with this conclusion, the City has adopted a Statemen t of Overriding Considerations for these impacts (Resolution #2011-63) which is herein incorporated by reference.
The certified General Plan EIR addressed and analyzed cumulative impacts resulting from changing agricultural use to urban us es. No new or unaddressed cumulative impacts will result from the project that have not previously been considered by the certified General Plan EIR or by the Stat ement of Overriding Considerations, or mitigated by this Expanded Initial Study. This Initial Study does not disclose any new and/or feasible mitigation measures which would lessen the unavoidable and significant cumulative impacts.
The analysis of impacts associated with the development would contribute to the cumulative air quality and agricultural impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. In the case of air quality, emissions from the proposed project would be less than significant.
The nature and extent of these impacts, however, falls within the parameters of impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No individual or cumulative impacts will be created by the Project that have not previ ously been considered at the program level by the General Plan EIR or mitigated by this Initial Study. 3) Less-Than-Significant Impact
Development anticipated by the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan will have significant adverse effects on human beings. These in clude the incremental degradation of air quality in the San Joaquin Basin, the loss of unique farmland, the incremental increase in traffic, and the increased demand on natural resources, public services, and facilities.
However, consistent with the provisions of CE QA previously identified, the analysis of the proposed project is limited to those impacts which are peculiar to the project site or which were not previously identified as significant effects in the prior EIR. The previously-certified General Plan EIR and th e Statement of Overri ding Considerations addressed those cumulative impacts; hence, there is no requirement to address them again as part of this project.
This previous EIR concluded that these si gnificant adverse impacts are accounted for in the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan EIR. In addition, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopt ed by City Council Resolution #2011-63 that indicates that the significant impacts associated with development are offset by the benefits that will be realized in providing n ecessary jobs for residents of the City. The analysis and mitigation of impacts have been detailed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan , which is incorporated into this document by reference.
Initial Study #23-08
While this issue was addressed and resolved with the General Plan EIR in an abundance of caution, in order to fulfill CEQA’s mandate to fully disc lose potential environmental consequences of projects, this analysis is considered herein. However, as a full disclosure document, this issue is repeated in abbreviated form for purposes of disclosure, even though it was resolved as a part of the General Plan.
Potential impacts associated with the Project’s development have been described in this Initial Study. All impacts were determined to be less than significant.
CHEYENNE DR
SANTA FE DR
HELENA CT
SALEM CT
CONESTOGA DR
LOUGHBOROUGH DR
PHOENIX WAY
W OLIVE AVE
N HW
Y 59
SAC
RA
MENTO DR
SANTA FE RD
W BLA
CK RASCAL BP
¯
Subject Site
(Self Storage/RV & Boat Parking)
1965 W. Olive Ave.
ResidentialBlue Fire
Walmart
Fahrens Park
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
Available on request
ATTACHMENT D
Available Upon Request
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW #23-08
Revised
Mitigation Monitoring Program
MITIGATION MONITORING CONTENTS
This mitigation monitoring program includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the mitigation monitoring program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, a discussion of noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself.
L
EGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resource Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
The City of Merced has adopted its own “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” (MMC
19.28). The City’s program was developed in accordance with the advisory publication, Tracking CEQA Mitigation Measures, from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
As required by MMC 19.28.050, the following findings are made:
1) The requirements of the adopted mitigation monitoring program for the General Plan Amendment #23-02, Site Utilization Plan (SUP) Revision #3 to Planned Development (P-D) #12, Conditional Use Permit #1274, and Site Plan Review #516 shall run with the real property. Successive owners, heirs, and assigns of this real property are bound to comply with all of the requirements of the adopted program.
2) Prior to any lease, sale, transfer, or conveyance of any portion of the subject real property, the applicant shall provide a copy of the adopted program to the prospective lessee, buyer, transferee, or one to whom the conveyance is made.
M
ITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
In most cases, mitigation measures can be monitored through the City’s construction plan approval/plan check process. When the approve d project plans and specifications, with mitigation measures, are submitted to the City Development Services Department, a copy of the monitoring checklist will be attached to the submittal. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist will be filled out upon project approval with mitigation measures required. As project plans and specifications are checked, compliance with each mitigation measure can be reviewed.
In instances where mitigation requires on-going monitoring, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist will be used until monitoring is no longer necessary. The Development Services Department will be required to file periodic reports on how th e implementation of various mitigation measures is progressing or is being maintained. Department staff may be required to conduct periodic inspections to assure compliance. In some instances, outside agencies and/or consultants may be required to conduct necessary periodic inspections as part of the mitigation monitoring program. Fees may be imposed per MMC 19.28.070 for the cost of implementing the monitoring program.
ATTACHMENT E
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516
Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 2
GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
As a second-tier environmental document, Initial Study #23-08 incorporates some mitigation measures adopted as part of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008071069), as mitigation for potential impacts of the Project.
NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS
Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the Director of Development Services in written form providing specific information on the asserted violation. The Director of Development Services shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with a mitigation measure has occurred, the Director of Development Services shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. Merced Municipal Code (MMC) Sections 19.28.080 and 19.28.090 outline the criminal penalties and civil and administrative remedies which may be incurred in the event of noncompliance. MMC 19.28.100 spells out the appeals procedures.
MONITORING MATRIX
The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigation measures proposed specifically for General Plan Amendment #23-02, Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development (P-D) #12, Conditional Use Permit #1274, and Site Plan Review #516. The columns within the tables are defined as follows:
Mitigation Measure: Describes the Mitigation Measure (referenced by number).
Timing: Identifies at what point in time or phase of the project that the mitigation measure will be completed.
Agency/Department This column references any public agency or City department with Consultation: which coordination is required to satisfy the identified mitigation measure.
Verification: These columns will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to the project specific mitigation.
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516 Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 3
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development (P-D) #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/
Site Plan Review Permit #516
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Project Name:__________________________________________________ File Number:___________________________________________________ _ Approval Date:_________________________________________________ Project Location Brief Project Description __________________________________________
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure in dicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and imp lemented, and fulfills the City of Merced’s Mitigation Monitoring Requirements (MMC 19.28) with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516 Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 4
1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Mitigation Measures Timing
Agency or
Department
City Verification
(date and initials)
a GHG- 1) Building Permit
Planning
Department
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516 Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 5
a
GHG-1) The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable BPS strategies to the Planning Division
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The following BPS strategies are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing GHG emissions generated by
the project:
x The project will provide a pedestrian access
network that internally links all uses and
connects to existing external streets and
pedestrian facilities. Existing facilities are
defined as those facilities that are physically
constructed and ready for use prior to the first
20% of the project's occupancy permits being
granted.
x Site design and building placement will
minimize barriers to pedestrian access and
interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls,
berms, landscaping, and slopes between
residential and nonresidential uses that impede
bicycle or pedestrian circulation will be
eliminated. Barriers to pedestrian access of
neighboring facilities and sites will be
minimized. This measure is not meant to prevent
the limited use of barriers to ensure public safety
by prohibiting access to hazardous areas. This
measure is not meant to prevent features needed
to securely operate a mini-storage facility.
x Merced Regional Transit System The Bus Route
Ml - Merced West - provides bus service with one-
half hour headways. A bus stop for Route Ml is
located at the Walmart store at Olive Avenue and
Building
Permit/Grading
Permit
Building /
Engineering
Departments
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516 Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 6
Loughborough Drive, directly south of the project
site. The project will provide safe and convenient
bicycle/pedestrian access to the bus stop and
provides essential transit stop improvements (i.e.,
shelters, route information, benches, and
lighting).The project applicant shall plant trees to
provide shade.
x The project will install light-colored/high/albedo
roof materials on the portion of the project
containing climate-controlled units. Light-
colored/high/albedo roof materials reflect more of
the sun's rays, decreasing the amount of heat
transferred into a building.
x The project will provide shade (within 5 years)
and/or use light-colored/high-albedo materials
(reflectance of at least 0.3) and/or open grid
pavement for at least 30% of the site's non-roof
impervious surfaces, including parking lots,
walkways, plazas, etc.; OR use an open-grid
pavement system (less than 50% impervious) for
a minimum of 50% of the parking lot area.
Unshaded parking lot areas, driveways, fire
lanes, and other paved areas will have a
minimum albedo of 0.3 or greater.
b GHG-2) Implementation of Mitigation Measure of GHG-1.
General Plan Amendment #23-02/Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to P-D #12/Conditional Use Permit #1274/Site Plan Review #516 Initial Study #23-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program--Page 7
Certificate of Completion:
By signing below, the environmental coordinator confirms that the required mitigation measures have been implemented as evidenc ed by the Schedule of Tasks and Sign-Off Checklist, and that all direct and indirect costs have been paid. This act constitutes the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
______________________________________ ________________ Environmental Coordinator Date