INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PROJECT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP15-003
COUNTY OF MERCED DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2222 ‘M’ Street Merced, CA 95340
Prepared with the Technical Assistance of:
e n v i r o n m e n t a l 8=2
P.O. Box 627 7281 Lone Pine Drive, Ste. D-203 Sloughhouse, CA 95683
April 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PROJECT
To: Interested Persons
From: County of Merced Department of Community and Economic Development 2222 ‘M’ Street Merced, CA 95340 Phone: (209) 385-7654 [email protected]
Contact: Sandy Saechao, Planner I
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Merced County is the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project. Merced County intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
The project site is located north of Dan Ward Road, between the intersections of Dan Ward Road with Ranchero Lane and Beachwood Drive in the Franklin-Beachwood area of unincorporated Merced County as described in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Merced County is considering Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP15-003. Approval of the application would allow the construction and operation of a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on 53.75 acres. As proposed, the project would be constructed in three phases over a 10-year period. The number of students at completion of each of the three phases would be 230, 385, and 800 respectively.
The proposed IS/MND is available for public review from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the offices of the Merced County Community and Economic Development Department (address listed above) and online at the Merced County website at:
www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=414
The public comment period on the IS/MND closes on May 19, 2016. Written comments may be submitted to Sandy Saechao at the above address. Emailed comments should be submitted to “[email protected]” and should include the phrase “San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project IS/MND” in the subject line.
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Project Description ...... 1 3. Required Approvals, Other Processes, and Consultations ...... 16 4. Environmental Analysis ...... 18 5. Applicant Agreement to Mitigation Measures ...... 140 6. Preparers of the Initial Study ...... 141 7. Literature Cited ...... 142 8. DETERMINATION ...... 149
Appendices Appendix A CalEEMod Model Output Appendix B Reconnaissance-Level Biological Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Sensitive and Listed Species Appendix C Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis
List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 2 Figure 2 Project Vicinity ...... 3 Figure 3 Proposed SJVCS Site Plan with Ranchero Lane Extension ...... 7 Figure 4 Proposed SJVCS Site Plan without Ranchero Lane Extension ...... 8 Figure 5 SJVCS Proposed Buildings and Facilities with Ranchero Lane Extension ...... 10 Figure 6 SJVCS Proposed Buildings and Facilities without Ranchero Lane Extension ...... 11 Figure 7 Proposed Building Elevations ...... 12 Figure 8 Castle Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones in the Vicinity of the SJVCS Site ...... 76 Figure 9 Required Noise Barrier Location ...... 98
List of Tables Table 1 Existing Buildings and Uses on the Project Site ...... 4 Table 2 Surrounding Land Uses at the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Site ...... 5 Table 3 SJV Christian School Project On-Site Soil Types ...... 25 Table 4 Attainment Status for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin/Merced County ...... 28 Table 5 Annual Air Quality Data for Merced County Air Quality Monitoring Stations ...... 29 Table 6 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds - Criteria Pollutants ...... 30 Table 7 Consistency of the Proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project with the Merced County General Plan Open Space Development Review System ...... 50 Table 8 Summary of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project ...... 64
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page i April 2016 Table of Contents
Table 9 Summary of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project ...... 65 Table 10 Castle Airport Compatibility Zones Applicable to Proposed SJVCS Land Uses ...... 73 Table 11 Existing (Baseline) Traffic Noise Levels @ 50 feet and Distances to Traffic Noise Contours ...... 90 Table 12 Long-term Ambient Noise Level Monitoring Results Summary ...... 90 Table 13 Predicted Playing Field Noise Levels at Nearby Residences ...... 94 Table 14 Predicted Railroad Noise Levels on Noise-Sensitive Receptors Within Project Area ...... 95 Table 15 Suitability of Soils on the Project Site for Septic Tank Absorption Fields ...... 118
1.
2.
3.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page ii April 2016
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Title: San Joaquin Valley Christian School Conditional Use Permit Application CUP15-003
Project Location: Dan Ward Road Merced, CA 95
Lead Agency Name and Address: Merced County Community and Economic Development Department 2222 ‘M’ Street Merced, CA 95340
Contact Person and Phone Number: Sandy Saechao, Planner I Phone: (209) 385-7654
General Plan Designation: Rural Residential Center
Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1)
1. INTRODUCTION
Implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School project would allow the construction and operation of a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on 53.75 acres. As proposed, the project would be constructed in three phases over a 10-year period. A fourth phase would be constructed beyond the initial 10-year development of the school. The number of students at completion of each of the three phases would be 230, 385, and 800 respectively.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION The proposed site of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School (SJVCS) is located north of Dan Ward Road, between the intersections of Dan Ward Road with Ranchero Lane and Beachwood Drive in the Franklin-Beachwood area of unincorporated Merced County (see Figures 1 and 2). The proposed school would be developed on 7 parcels totaling 53.75-acres identified as Merced County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 057-050-0020, 021, 022, and 059, and 057-015-001, 002, and 003 (comprising 53.2 acres). The San Joaquin Valley Christian School Association (SJVCSA) owns two adjacent parcels, APNs 057-050-019 and 057-015-018, but no school facilities or other development of these parcels is proposed. The project site is located in Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 13 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; 37°20.004ʹ N, 120°31.955ʹ W.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 1 April 2016 132 Modesto 140 49 99
San Joaquin River Turlock STANISLAUS CO. MERCED CO. Project Area
Hilmar 33 Livingston 59
Atwater 140
140 Merced
San Planada Luis Nat. MARIPOSA CO. 59 MADERA CO. Wildlife Refuge Merced National er l Riv Wildlife Chowchi la 33 Refuge El Nido Chowchilla
Los Banos 152 152 San Luis 99 Reservoir 5 165 Fr esno River C h o w c Madera h i l l a
C
a
33 n
a l 145
B
y p
a s N s
Fresno 180 FRESNO CO. 5 SAN BENITO CO.
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: Planning Partners, 2016 Figure 1 Regional Location Project Site
Dan Ward Rd.
Santa Fe Dr.
Franklin Rd. Ashby Rd. Ranchero Ln. Lobo Ave.
BeachwoodDr.
N
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: Google Earth, 2015; Planning Partners, 2016 Figure 2 Project Vicinity Project Description
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site consists of fallow agricultural land that has been disked for weed control and fire protection. Existing developed uses on the project site consist of four existing residences, a barn and other outbuildings.
Physical Environment
With the exception of four residences on Dan Ward Road, the project site is currently fallow, although much of the site was farmed in the past. Railroad tracks run along the northeast side of the property. The project area is level at an elevation of 163 feet above sea level (MSL) (Google Earth Pro 2015a).
The land on the subject property is disturbed and does not support historical flora and fauna. The proposed SJVCS project site is located in a part of the southern San Joaquin Valley that originally contained components of two natural communities prior to development: Valley Grassland and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool. Neither of these vegetation communities is currently present on the project site. There are very few patches of native vegetation on the project site, and these areas do not support extensive wild plant diversity or cover. There are no native trees on the project site. No streams, marshes or vernal pools occur on the property.
Previous Agricultural Operations The majority of the project site has a history of agricultural use. Aerial photographs of the project area indicate that as early as 1998 most of the western and central portions of the project site were used as irrigated pasture. In 2011 the western portion of the site was planted in row crops (Google Earth Pro 2015b). At the time of preparation of this Initial Study (April 2016), the agricultural portion of the site was fallow. The most recent activity occurred in spring 2015, when the fields were disked for weed and fire control.
Existing Developed Buildings and Uses There are three existing single-family homes on the project site: 2574, 2610, and 2738 Dan Ward Avenue, all owned by the SJVCSA. The residences at 2610 and 2738 Dan Ward Avenue are also developed with barns and other outbuildings. Characteristics of these existing residences are set forth in Table 1.
Table 1 Existing Buildings and Uses on the Project Site Address Type Occupancy Outbuildings Fate 2738 Dan Ward Rd. Single Family Residence Occupied Barn; shed All structures demolished 2610 Dan Ward Rd. Single Family Residence Occupied Pole garage; sheds Pole garage demolished 2594 Dan Ward Rd. Vacant Vacant Vacant Future driveway ------Vacant Vacant Vacant Future driveway 2574 Dan Ward Rd. Single Family Residence Occupied Garage; granny All structures would be flat demolished during Phase 4 Source: Planning Partners Site Visit 2016, SJVSCA Site Plan March 2016.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 4 April 2016 Project Description
These three residences are provided potable water by the Meadowbrook Water Company. Community wastewater disposal is provided to three of the residences by the Franklin County Water District.
All residential parcels are landscaped with ornamental trees ranging from 3 to 6 per parcel.
There are no known hazardous materials stored at any of the residences.
Site Access Existing access to the project site would be provided by Dan Ward Road. Regional access is provided by Santa Fe Drive, Beachwood Drive, Franklin Road, and State Route 99.
SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is located in an area transitioning from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses. Existing land uses and facilities immediately surrounding the project site include single-family residences and rural residential uses to the south and west; and the raised tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, Santa Fe Drive, and agricultural, heavy commercial, and industrial uses to the north and east.
Table 2 lists the surrounding land uses and corresponding General Plan and zoning designations.
Table 2 Surrounding Land Uses at the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Site
Location Land Use General Plan Zoning
Agricultural Residential within the Franklin- ON SITE Fallow agricultural land / 3 Residences Beachwood Rural R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Residential Center; Neighborhood Commercial BNSF railroad tracks / Santa Fe Drive Agricultural; NORTH A-1 (General Agricultural) / Agriculture – row crops Industrial A-1 (General Agricultural) BNSF railroad tracks / Santa Fe Drive Agricultural; C-1 (Neighborhood EAST / Agriculture – row crops / Commercial) Commercial and Industrial Uses Industrial M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Very Low Density R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Residential; Low Density A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Residential; Agricultural C-1 (Neighborhood SOUTH Residences/Rural residences Residential within the Commercial) Franklin-Beachwood Rural Residential Center; Neighborhood Commercial Residences/Rural residences / WEST Agricultural Residential A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Undeveloped land Source: Merced County 2015; Planning Partners Site Visit, November 2015.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 5 April 2016 Project Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The San Joaquin Valley Christian School Association has applied to Merced County for Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP15-003 to construct and operate a new Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade school as illustrated in Figures 3 through 7.
The 2030 General Plan adopted by Merced County indicates that Ranchero Lane would be extended north through the project site to connect with Belcher Avenue, after having passed over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks and Santa Fe Drive on an overpass (Merced County 2013). However, the County is currently revising the Franklin-Beachwood Community Plan, and this proposed extension of Ranchero Drive may be deleted from the Community Plan and General Plan. The extension of Ranchero Drive is not a part of the proposed SJVCS school project, and other than the on-site effects to biological and cultural resources, the environmental effects of constructing and operating this roadway are not assessed in this Initial Study. The future construction of this roadway extension is not required to serve the proposed school, and the roadway project lacks funding. Merced County’s decision regarding the fate of the Extension is expected prior to 2018.
In response to the uncertain status of the Ranchero Lane Extension, the project applicant has submitted two alternate site plans to Merced County for consideration (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Figure 3 illustrates a site plan that would accommodate the extension of Ranchero Lane through the project site. Figure 4 depicts a proposed school layout that would be constructed if the proposed Ranchero Lane Extension were not constructed. Both site plans have been designed so that no school facilities that would interfere with the road’s construction would be constructed prior to the County’s decision on whether to construct the Extension.
Each of the proposed site plans would accommodate classrooms, athletic fields (basketball, baseball, softball, football, track and field, soccer, swimming, tennis, and equestrian center), Future Farmers of America facilities for educational purposes, a student agriculture program, industrial arts, and parking as detailed below. The following information is based on plans and drawings, an operational statement, and a project application submitted by the SJVCSA to Merced County in support of the Association’s CUP application. (SJVCSA 2016)
Demolition and Site Preparation Two of the residences on the project site, 2594, and 2738 Dan Ward Road, would be demolished, as would all of the barns or outbuildings associated with the homes. All existing utility connections for these residences would be decommissioned. The existing outbuildings at 2610 Dan Ward Avenue would be removed, but the residence would remain. This remaining residence would be occupied by a SJVCSA employee. The residence and outbuildings at 2574 Dan Ward Road would not be affected during the initial construction of the school. In the future, this residence and its outbuildings could be demolished, and a new structure could be constructed.
The area of the removed residences and outbuildings, and the remainder of the site would be graded in preparation for the construction of school buildings and facilities. Any existing agricultural infrastructure on the site would be removed.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 6 April 2016 Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: SJVCSA 2016; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 3 Proposed SJVCS Site Plan with Ranchero Lane Extension Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: SJVCSA 2016; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 4 Proposed SJVCS Site Plan without Ranchero Lane Extension Project Description
Construction
Approval of the proposed school project would result in the construction of an 800-student Pre- Kindergarten through Grade 12 school, together with supporting facilities, on 53.75-acres as depicted on Figures 5 and 6. Development of the school would include classrooms, a gymnasium, vocational and agricultural education facilities, and sports venues. Construction of the proposed school complex would occur over three phases for a period extending up to 10 years after project approval (see Figures 3 and 4 for the location of each phase). Construction would occur intermittently during this period, as described below. Additional construction of two small structures could be completed beyond this initial 10-year period as described in Phase 4.
Phase 1 Phase 1 would begin immediately upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit and building plans by Merced County. The following improvements would be constructed during this phase as indicated on Figures 5 and 6:1 A. Upper Wing classroom building with classrooms for Junior High and High School students with supporting office space for staff B. Sustainable Center building to include a performing arts auditorium, locker rooms, a kitchen, and gymnasiums C. Entry plaza for the upper wing and sustainable center buildings D. Junior high playground, including two basketball courts, with associated fencing E. Parking lots associated to Phase 1 development F. Right of way for the future extension of Ranchero Lane from Dan Ward road to Santa Fe Drive would be reserved, if required by the County G. Two driveways to provide access to the campus from Dan Ward Road H. A T-intersection to connect the main parking lot with a temporary driveway within the Ranchero Road right-of-way; If the Ranchero Lane Extension is deleted from County plans prior to the initiation of this Phase, the south half a planned roundabout would be constructed during Phase 1 I. Irrigation pond J. Expansion of existing stormwater retention basin
The major buildings to be constructed during Phase 1 include the Upper Wing classroom building and the Sustainable Center multiple use building. Both buildings would be single story as depicted on Figure 7. The 35,839 square foot classroom building would contain 23 classrooms for high school and junior high school students. The Sustainable Center building would be 36,458 square feet in area, and would contain a: Gymnasium (661 bleacher seats); locker rooms; two multi-purpose rooms (once of which would contain 54 bleacher seats); a 325-seat Auditorium/Theater, and a kitchen.
Construction during this phase is expected to last 9 months, with Phase 1 of the school opening in fall 2017.
1 Lettered facilities within each Phase are keyed to Figures 5 and 6. Please see that figure for the locations of proposed facilities.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 9 April 2016 A Upper Wing Classrooom B Sustainable Center C Entry Plaza D Junior High Playground E Parking Lots – Phase 1 F Extension of Ranchero Lane J G Access Driveways H Roundabout not included in this project variant R I Irrigation Pond F J Retention Basin K Lower Wing Classroom L Elementary Playground M Preschool Play Yard N Frontage Improvements on Dan Ward Road O Youth Soccer Fields S P Varsity Soccer Field / Practice Football Field Q Track / Football and Soccer Fields / Q Spectator Stands F T R Varsity Softball Fields / Spectator Stands U U V S Varsity Baseball Fields / Spectator Stands T Pool P U Tennis Courts V Field House / Concessions / Rest Rooms C W Equestrian Stable / Corral W X Maintenance Building and Yard D A B I Y Shop Building F L O O Z Parking Lots – Phase 3 K Y AA X AA Agriculture Building and Greenhouses M AB AB Crop Fields G ZZZ AC Administration Building E Z AD Maintenance Building AC AD G N NG
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: SJVCSA 2016; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 5 SJVCS Proposed Buildings and Facilities with Ranchero Land Extension A Upper Wing Classrooom B Sustainable Center C Entry Plaza D Junior High Playground J E Parking Lots – Phase 1 F Extension of Ranchero Lane (not shown) G Access Driveways H Roundabout I Irrigation Pond R J Retention Basin S K Lower Wing Classroom L Elementary Playground M Preschool Play Yard N Frontage Improvements on Dan Ward Road O Youth Soccer Fields S P Varsity Soccer Field / Practice Football Field R Q Track / Football and Soccer Fields / Spectator Stands Q R Varsity Baseball and Softball Fields / T Spectator Stands U U V S Junior Varsity Baseball and Softball Fields / Spectator Stands P T Pool U Tennis Courts V Field House / Concessions / Rest Rooms C W W Equestrian Stable / Corral D A B X Maintenance Building and Yard L O O I Y Shop Building K AA Z Parking Lots – Phase 3 M Y X AB AA Agriculture Building and Greenhouses H AB Crop Fields E Z ZZZ AC Administration Building AD Maintenance Building AC AD G N NG
San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: SJVCSA 2016; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 6 SJVCS Proposed Buildings and Facilities without Ranchero Land Extension San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: SJVCSA 2016; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 7 Proposed Building Elevations Project Description
Phase 2 Construction of Phase 2 is expected to occur within 3 to 6 years after completion and occupancy of Phase 1. As shown on Figures 5 and 6, the improvements to be constructed during Phase 2 include: H. If the Ranchero Lane Extension is deleted from County plans prior to the initiation of this Phase, the remainder of a planned roundabout would be constructed during Phase 2 K. Lower Wing building with classrooms for K-6th grade students, as well as supporting offices for staff L. Elementary playground, with two small basketball courts and play structures, and associated fencing M. Pre-school play yard and associated fencing N. Frontage improvements on Dan Ward Road
No architectural plans, capacities, or detailed uses within this phase have been prepared by the SJVCSA. Construction during this phase is expected to last 12 months, with Phase 2 of the school opening in the fall of its construction year.
Phase 3 Facilities within Phase 3 are forecast to be constructed 6 to 10 years after completion of Phase 1. As shown on Figures 5 and 6, the improvements to be constructed during Phase 3 would include: O. Two youth soccer fields P. Full size varsity soccer field/practice football field Q. Track and field/football/soccer field and spectator stands with a capacity of 1,500-2,000 persons R. Varsity baseball and softball fields, with spectator stands S. If the extension of Ranchero Lane is not required by the County, junior varsity baseball and softball fields will be constructed, along with spectator stands (Figures 4 and 6); If Ranchero Lane is constructed or planned to be constructed, these facilities would not be developed (Figures 3 and 5) T. Pool building, with spectator stand. Pool pump to be housed in a separate building near the pool building. The location of the pool building would be modified if Ranchero Lane is constructed or planned to be constructed U. Four tennis courts V. Field house and concessions/restroom building W. Equestrian stable and corral. The arena is estimated to be about 100 feet by 200 feet in size, and the stable is to board 10 horses during the spring season (February to May). No other animals would be kept at the school X. Maintenance building and yard Y. Shop building for educational purposes. Building to include facilities for woodworking, metalworking, welding, and minor fabrication work. Z. Parking lots for athletic fields, agriculture, and industrial arts buildings and associated interior circulation improvements; The location of the athletic field parking lot would be modified Ranchero Lane is constructed or planned to be constructed AA. Agriculture building and greenhouses AB. Crop fields
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 13 April 2016 Project Description
No architectural plans, capacities, or detailed uses within this phase have been prepared by the SJVCSA. All sports venues would include seating, although the number of seats per venue is currently unknown. Facilities would be constructed intermittently over a multi-year period as funding and student enrollment allow.
Phase 4 As shown in Figures 5 and 6, two future buildings (AC and AD) are shown on the sites of existing residences at 2738 and 2574 Dan Ward Road. Building AC would be used as an Administrative office for the proposed campus; Building AD would house maintenance supplies and equipment. The design and configuration of these two buildings have not yet been determined. No date for completion of these buildings has been scheduled.
Circulation and Parking During the construction of Phase 1 of the school project, two access driveways would be constructed on Dan Ward Road as shown on Figures 3 and 4. If the Ranchero Lane Extension continues to be a planned facility, and has not been constructed prior to the initiation of Phase 1, a temporary driveway and T-intersection as shown in Figure 3 would be constructed. If the construction of the Ranchero Lane Extension is determined by Merced County to be unnecessary, a permanent driveway and the south half of a roundabout would be constructed to connect the main parking lot with Dan Ward Road (Figure 4). Internal circulation and parking would be constructed to meet the needs of each phase. In Phase 1, internal driveways would connect the two access points, and the majority of parking programmed for the school would be constructed. Upon completion of Phase 3, the site would be developed with 505 vehicle parking spaces, 16 of which would be accessible to the mobility impaired. The school would additionally provide 16 motorcycle spaces, and parking for 22 bikes. Within each phase, parking provided would meet the requirements of Merced County.
Landscaping No information is available at the time of preparation of this Initial Study regarding proposed landscaping on the campus or the type of turf that would be installed on the sports fields.
Utilities The school would be served with potable water by the Meadowbrook Water Company (Meadowbrook 2015). Irrigation water for landscaping and the campus agricultural program would be provided by the Merced Irrigation District (MID) and delivered from an adjacent irrigation lateral along the site’s easterly boundary (MID 2016a). Water for outdoor irrigation during the late fall through early spring when the MID irrigation system is not in operation would be provided by carry-over storage in the irrigation pond or by supplemental water provided by the Meadowbrook Water Company, if needed.
At the time of preparation of this Initial Study, the SJVCSA is proposing two methods to provide wastewater treatment services to the site. The Franklin County Water District may have some capacity to treat a portion of the wastewater generated by Phase 1 of the school. The FCWD is also investigating the expansion of their disposal capacity to serve buildout of the proposed campus and its intermediate phases. For wastewater generated in Phase 1 in excess of the FCWD’s current treatment capacity, and to the extent that the FCWD is unable to provide additional capacity for
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 14 April 2016 Project Description future phases, the SJVCSA proposes that the wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the school be provided by a series of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) consisting of septic tanks and double-depth leach fields. Septic tanks and leach fields would be developed within each of the initial three project phases as demand required. As necessary, septic systems would be sited in open areas of the campus, including a landscaped plaza, a soccer field, and several undeveloped areas of the site near the proposed agricultural facilities. Areas reserved for replacement leach line would be located immediately adjacent to the proposed primary leach fields.
Electricity would be provided by the Merced Irrigation District, and gas service would be provided by PG&E (MID 2016, Luna pers. comm. 2015).
Operations Existing Christian School Facilities The SJVCSA currently operates two separate campuses for Pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade (Providence Christian School) and Grades 9 through 12 (Stone Ridge Christian High School) in the Merced area within existing church facilities located at 2142 East Yosemite Avenue and 500 West Buena Vista Drive respectively. The capacities of the two schools are 220 students (pre-K – 8th grade), and 120 students (Grades 9-12). The high school would be closed upon the completion of Phase 1 of the proposed project, although the existing facilities would continue to be used by the First Baptist Church of Merced. Enrollment at the elementary school would decrease upon completion of Phase 1 of the project when all 7th and 8th Grade students would be transferred to the proposed school. All remaining students would be transferred to the Dan Ward Drive campus at the completion of Phase 2 of the project. The existing facilities at the Yosemite Church of Merced would continue to be used for church activities.
New Dan Ward Road Campus The school would operate Monday – Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from September to May. Additional non-regular school and community activities could take place on site throughout the week in the afternoon and evening. Non-regular school activities could consist of unspecified local community gatherings and functions for the surrounding neighborhoods, church events, weddings, and various non-school related sporting events. Non-regular school activities also could occur during summer months as well as during the school year.
Upon completion of Phase 1, the school is estimated to enroll 175 students in grades 7 through 12, with 25 associated teachers and staff. At the fifth year of operation, the project sponsors forecast a student population of 230 and a total of 30 staff. After completion and opening of Phase 2, the total student population is estimated to be 385 with a supporting staff of 40. At full buildout of the proposed plan through Phase 4 and full occupancy, the school is estimated to have 800 students and 60 staff.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 15 April 2016 Project Description
3. REQUIRED APPROVALS, OTHER PROCESSES, AND CONSULTATIONS
A listing and brief description of the regulatory permits and approvals required to implement the proposed project are provided below. This environmental document is intended to address the environmental impacts associated with all of the following decision actions and approvals.
Merced County The County has the following permitting authority related to the proposed Cooperative project:
• Preparation and Approval of an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration - Merced County will act as the lead agency as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and will have authority to determine if the IS/MND is adequate under CEQA. • Approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP15-003 - Merced County will consider the proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School project under a “Conditional Use Permit.” Conditional Use Permits are discretionary permits for uses of land that require special review to ensure that they are compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding residences. They are considered more likely to affect surrounding land uses than uses permitted by right in a zoning district. • Building Permit - Merced County will require a building permit for each of the proposed buildings. A soils report completed by a licensed geotechnical engineer must be submitted with the building permit application. • On-Site Septic Systems – The Merced County DEH will review site plans for the proposed on-site waste disposal system. The Division’s regulatory authority does not permit it to review or approve systems with a capacity of 10,000 gallons per day or greater. If the needed wastewater treatment capacity of the school exceeds this amount, a permit will need to be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District • SJVAPCD Rules - The construction of the proposed project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, including Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 (Fugitive
PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Because several existing residences would demolished and removed, the project would also be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 16 April 2016 Project Description
State Water Resources Control Board • General Construction Activity – The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit for stormwater discharges associated with any construction activity (including clearing, grading, excavation, reconstruction, and dredge and fill activities) that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area, or projects that disturb less than one acre but are part of a large common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres. All dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. This General Permit has developed specific Best Management Practices (BMP) and requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Following submittal of a Notice of Intent package and development of a SWPPP in accordance with the Construction General Permit, the applicant will receive a Waste Discharge Identification Number from the SWRCB. Because the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, the General Construction Activity Permit would be required. • Report of Waste Discharge – The SWRCB has implemented a Water Control Policy for the Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. If the needed wastewater treatment capacity of the school exceeds 10,000 gallons per day, the SJVCSA will need to consult with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SJVCSA may be required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge for coverage of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or a Waiver of WDR.
Federal Government No permitting from federal agencies would be required.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 17 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PURPOSE AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STUDY As a public disclosure document, this Initial Study provides local decision makers and the public with information regarding the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. According to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an Initial Study is to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration. 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. 3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required by: a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, c. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Following each major category in the Initial Study, there are four determinations by which to judge the project’s impact. These categories and their meanings are shown below:
“No Impact” means that it is anticipated that the project will not affect the physical environment on or around the project site. It therefore does not warrant mitigation measures.
“Less-than-Significant Impact” means the project is anticipated to affect the physical environment on and around the project site, however to a less-than-significant degree, and therefore not warranting mitigation measures.
“Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation” applies to impacts where the incorporation of mitigation measures into a project has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant” to “Less Than Significant”. In such cases, and with such projects, mitigation measures will be provided including a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant, and no mitigation is possible.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 18 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
APPLICATION OF THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE The 2030 Merced County General Plan guides economic development, land use, agriculture, transportation and circulation, public facilities and services, natural resource, recreation and cultural resources, health and safety, air quality, water, and other decisions. The General Plan is intended to provide for orderly growth, and to convey the community’s values and expectations for the future. An EIR for the 2030 General Plan was certified and the General Plan adopted by Merced County in December 2013. A Draft Background Report of existing environmental conditions within the County was finalized in December 2013 with certification of the General Plan EIR. The Background Report functions as the existing setting section for the General Plan EIR. The EIR, including the Background Report, as updated, is used in this Initial Study, along with other resources, to establish the existing setting for the proposed project, and to serve as the first tier of environmental analysis for the proposed project, including the evaluation of countywide and cumulative impacts. The 2030 General Plan EIR, including the Background Report, is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as though fully set forth herein. A copy of the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and Background Report can be obtained at the Department of Community and Economic Development, 2222 “M” Street, Merced, CA 95340. It is also available for download from the Merced County General Plan website at: http://www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=100
TIERING FROM THE 2030 MERCED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN EIR “Tiering” refers to the relationship between a program-level EIR (where long-range programmatic cumulative impacts are the focus of the environmental analysis) and subsequent environmental analyses such as this subject document, which focus primarily on issues unique to a smaller project within the larger program or plan pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Tiering focuses the environmental review on the project-specific significant effects that were not examined in the prior environmental review or are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or by other means.
In the case of the SJV Christian School project, the environmental analysis for this Initial Study is tiered from the EIR for the 2030 Merced County General Plan. The Merced County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR and adopted the 2030 General Plan on December 10, 2013 (SCH #2011041067). The 2030 General Plan regulates the location, use, design, construction, and operation of developed land uses within the County; all existing and proposed land uses within the County are required to comply with the goals and policies of the 2030 General Plan, including the SJV Christian School Association project. To reflect this, the requirements of the 2030 General Plan and conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in the 2030 General Plan EIR were incorporated in this Initial Study.
The 2030 General Plan EIR comprehensively evaluated the potential environmental effects of implementing the 2030 General Plan, and from the approval of new or modified land uses. The 2030 General Plan EIR identified a number of mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of these potential effects. Those measures were subsequently adopted by the County in its adoption of the 2030 General Plan, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted. Because the SJV Christian School Association project is consistent with, and implements, the 2030 General Plan, those previously adopted mitigation measures and conditions apply to the SJV
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 19 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Christian School project, and would continue to apply after approval of the currently requested actions. Therefore, the SJV Christian School project is related to the 2030 General Plan EIR and, pursuant to Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental documents is appropriate.
The 2030 General Plan EIR can be reviewed at the location set forth above.
Incorporation of the 2030 Merced County General Plan EIR By Reference Based on the reasoning set forth above, this environmental evaluation implements, and is consistent with, mitigation measures and study protocols adopted by Merced County in its certification of the 2030 General Plan EIR and its approval of the 2030 Merced County General Plan. Because of its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of developed land uses in Merced County, the 2030 General Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as though fully set forth herein.
Summary of the Impacts Analysis of the 2030 Merced County General Plan EIR The 2030 Merced County General Plan EIR presents an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan and land uses developed consistent with the Plan in Merced County. The EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the Plan on a comprehensive basis, including discussion of the full range of impacts that would occur because of future development. The EIR identified potential significant environmental impacts arising from implementation of the General Plan and land uses developed consistent with the Plan for the following issue areas:
Aesthetics: light and glare; and cumulative impacts to aesthetics.
Agriculture and Forestry: conversion of Important Farmland to non-agriculture use; conflict with zoning for agricultural use or provisions of the Williamson Act; land use changes that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses from urban development; land use changes that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses due to the Minor Subdivision of Rural Parcels or due to inadequate parcel sizes; and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
Air Quality: operational emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 associated with General Plan buildout; health risks associated with locating sensitive receptors near high volume roads; cumulative impacts to air quality.
Biological Resources: adverse effects to special status species and sensitive habitats due to conversion of farmlands and open space; adverse effect on wetlands, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural communities; loss or modification of federally protected wetlands; interference with animal movement/migration patterns; cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Cultural Resources: adverse changes to the significance of a historical resource; adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geological features, or disturbances to human remains; degradation or loss of traditional cultural properties where Native American customs and traditions are practiced; cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 20 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Geology: use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in unfit soils that may result in increased nutrients or other pollutants reaching and damaging groundwater resources.
Global Climate Change: increase in GHG emissions associated with 2030 General Plan buildout; increase in GHG emissions that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; cumulative impacts to global climate change.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: projects located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites resulting in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment; projects located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a public or private airport resulting in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area.
Hydrology and Water Quality: depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge; modification of surface water drainage patterns resulting in detrimental flooding or substantial erosion or siltation; cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality.
Land Use Compatibility: physically divide an established community.
Mineral Resources: loss of mineral resources; and cumulative loss of mineral resources.
Noise: permanent increase in ambient noise levels; traffic noise level increases at existing sensitive uses caused by development consistent with the 2030 General Plan; expose people to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; cumulative impacts to noise.
Population and Housing: induce population growth, directly or indirectly.
Transportation and Circulation: conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness of county roads, State Highways, or streets within incorporated cities in Merced County; increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; inadequate emergency access; conflict with policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance or safety of those facilities; cumulative impacts to transportation and circulation.
Utilities and Service Systems: sufficient water supply resources available to accommodate continued development through buildout of the 2030 General Plan; cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems.
Other CEQA Topics: cumulative impacts to growth inducement and irreversible environmental changes.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 21 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, including three impacts that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation” as indicated by the checklist discussion on the following pages.
✗ Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources ✗ Air Quality ✗ Biological Resources ✗ Cultural Resources Geology / Soils ✗ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ✗ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ✗ Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources ✗ Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation ✗ Transportation / Traffic ✗ Utilities / Service Systems ✗ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate whether or not the proposed project would have or would potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment, either individually or cumulatively with other projects. All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation are considered. Mandatory Findings of Significance are located in Section XVIII below. Both project variations are assessed for each potential impact. In most instances, the potential environmental effects are the same or similar for each project variant. In cases where impacts differ between the two, a separate environmental conclusion will be presented for each. For additional information regarding the differences between the two project variants, see Section 2, and Figures 3 through 6 of this Initial Study.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 22 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ✓
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ✓
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ✓
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in an area transitioning from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses. The project site consists of fallow agricultural land that has been disked for weed control and fire protection. Existing developed uses on the project site consist of four existing residences, a barn and other outbuildings. The visual character of the project vicinity is defined by relatively flat terrain, with surrounding agricultural and residential land uses transitioning to more intensely developed urban land uses. Land uses visible in the foreground include residential, agricultural, and industrial/heavy commercial uses, as well as the BNSF railroad line. Views of these land uses extend into the distance.
Merced County, in its 2030 General Plan, identifies its rural and agricultural landscapes as the primary scenic resources in the county. The Natural Resources element of the document contains a goal and policies to address the management, protection, and preservation of these resources. Specifically, Policy NR-4.1 reads: “Promote the preservation of agricultural land, ranch land, and other open space areas as a means of protecting the County’s resources.”
Question (a) Scenic Vista: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The vicinity of the project site is not designated as a scenic vista by the State of California, Merced County, or any other public agency. Short- to mid-range viewers of the project site include travellers on nearby local roads and the BNSF railroad, and residents and employees of surrounding residences, agricultural facilities, and businesses. The flat terrain in the vicinity of the project site precludes long-range views. As shown on Figure 7, because implementation of either of the proposed project variants would result in the construction of school facilities that would be similar in size and stature to other facilities in the surrounding area, implementation of the project would not substantially interfere with any existing scenic view. A less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (b) Scenic Highway: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans 2011). Neither the project site, nor views to or from the project site, have been designated an important scenic resource by the State of California, Merced County, or any other public agency. Because the project site is not a prominent component of the viewscape of a designated scenic highway, and there would be no damage to scenic resources, a less-than-significant impact would result with implementation of either of the proposed project variants.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 23 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question (c) Visual Character: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The existing visual character of the area surrounding the project site is defined by a mix of residential, agricultural, and industrial/heavy commercial land uses. Implementation of the either of the proposed project variants would result in the construction and operation of a school facility, the visual effects of which are reasonable and expected in the context of the residential land use designation. The scale of the proposed school facilities would be similar in size to other developed uses in the project vicinity. (See Figure 7.) Implementation of the proposed project variants would result in a less-than-significant impact to visual character, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (d) Light and Glare: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) As an undeveloped lot, the project site features no existing day or nighttime lighting. Implementation of either of the proposed project variants would result in new exterior lighting, such as security, signage, walkway, and landscape lighting. It could also result in the installation of outdoor lighting of some or all of the sports fields.
Because there is currently no development on the project site, the proposed lighting would result in a new or increased source of light and glare that would be visible to motorists on perimeter streets, and to viewers from nearby residences and commercial uses. Additionally, headlights from cars exiting the site at the westernmost driveway, and other lighting, could create a nuisance for those occupying the residence adjacent to the western border of the site on Dan Ward Road. Merced County requires that the proposed project comply with lighting standards that ensure that lighting on the site would be focused within the project boundary, and shielded away from adjacent roadways and properties.
No lighting plan has been submitted for either of the project variants being assessed in this Initial Study. Therefore, the potential for adverse light and glare effects would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following measure would require that the project applicant prepare, submit, and implement a lighting plan to ensure that onsite lighting meets County standards for light trespass and glare. Mitigation Measure AES-1: If the project applicant or any successor in interest plans to light any of the sports fields to be constructed in Phase 3, prior to the issuance of any building permit for Phase 3, the applicant shall prepare and submit a lighting plan to Merced County for review and approval. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the County's lighting requirements including the limitation of light trespass outside of the project boundaries, and the shielding of all light fixtures to ensure that there would be no direct shine onto adjacent roadways or surrounding properties. Upon approval by the County, the applicant shall implement the lighting plan. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 of the SJVCS, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall plant a row of fast-growing trees to the west of the driveway approaching Dan Ward Road, immediately adjacent to the sound barrier wall required by Mitigation Measure NSE-1, to prevent any impact of parking lot illumination to the residence nearest to the project. The row of trees shall extend from Dan Ward Road in a northerly direction and terminate adjacent to the proposed intersection with the main parking lot, or the roundabout if Ranchero Lanes is not constructed.
By requiring compliance with the County's lighting standards and the planting of a row of trees adjacent to the nearby residence, implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce this potential effect below a level of significance, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 24 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ✓
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ✓
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? ✓
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ✓
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The majority of project site is designated as a Rural Residential Center in the 2030 Merced County General Plan. The applicant owns a small parcel that is adjacent to the project site; it is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan. However, there are no uses proposed for that parcel, and it is not evaluated as part of the proposed project. The Merced Code Zoning Code applies a designation of R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to the proposed project. The project site is not currently within the Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve, nor is the land under a Williamson Act contract (Merced 2015a).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides agricultural ratings for soils in the project area in the Merced County Soil Survey. See Table 3 below for a listing of soils found on site.
Table 3 SJV Christian School Project On-Site Soil Types Approx. Acres of Soil in CA Revised Storie Soil Map Unit Symbol and Name Project Site Index Grade (AgA) Atwater loamy sand, deep over hardpan, 0 to 3 percent slopes 48.4 3 – Fair (GeA) Greenfield sandy loam, deep over hardpan, poorly drained 3.2 5 – Very Poor varian, 0 to 1 percent slopes (SbA) San Joaquin loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.9 4 - Poor Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Merced County Soil Survey. Web Soil Survey accessed November 16, 2015.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 25 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Important Farmlands Map of Merced County (FMMP), the project site contains is comprised of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance (FMMP 2010).
The project site is located in an area transitioning from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses. Nearby land uses, separated from the project site by a railroad embankment and a four-lane roadway, include agricultural uses; however, there are no agricultural uses abutting the project site or in its immediate vicinity. Single family residences at urban densities surround the triangular site on two sides. There are no forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the vicinity. No commercial forest management practices occur on the project site.
Question (a) Important Farmland: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of the proposed project variants would occur in an area designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance. Because the project site is located in an area that transitions from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses, including single family residential uses immediately abutting the project site, implementation of either of the project variants would be considered an infill project. Nuisance effects at surrounding residences related to dust, noise from agricultural operations, restrictions on the application of agricultural chemicals, and lack of access for agricultural equipment hinder continued farming operations. For these reasons, and because the proposed project is an appropriate use as designated in the Zoning Code and the 2030 General Plan, the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would be a less-than- significant impact.
Questions (b) Agricultural Production, Williamson Act: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The Merced County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate the project site for residential uses. As stated above, the project site is not within the Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. With approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed use, a Pre-K through 12th grade school, would be an appropriate use consistent with the Merced County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For these reasons, neither of the proposed project variants would conflict with zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Questions (c)(d) Forest land: No Impact. (Both project variants) The project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. There are no forest resources located on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (e) Non-forest Use: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The proposed project would not involve the development of any use that would be inconsistent with the zoning of the project site. Because it would be considered an infill project and would be consistent with land uses in the surrounding area, the development of non-agricultural uses would be a less-than- significant impact. Since there are no forest resources on the project site, there would be no conversion of such uses. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 26 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ✓
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ✓
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ✓
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ✓
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Air quality influences public health and welfare, the economy, and quality of life. Air pollutants have the potential to adversely impact public health, the production and quality of agricultural crops, visibility, native vegetation, and buildings and structures.
Regulatory Framework Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The U.S. EPA, the federal agency that administers the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, as amended in 1970, has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for seven air pollution constituents. As permitted by the CAA, California has adopted more stringent state ambient air quality standards (SAAQS), and expanded the number of air constituents regulated.
Merced County is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Under both the federal and state CAAs, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in Merced County. The SJVAPCD has jurisdiction over all point and area sources of air emissions except for mobile sources (such as motor vehicles), consumer products, and pesticides. To improve the health and air quality for Valley residents, the SJVAPCD implements air quality management strategies and enforces its Rules and Regulations. The SJVAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have joint responsibility for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and SAAQS in the SJVAB.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 27 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
The ARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any state standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once.
The EPA designates areas for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as either “Does not meet the primary standards,” “Cannot be classified,” or “Better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide (SO2), areas are designated as “Does not meet the primary standards,” “Does not meet secondary standards,” “Cannot be classified,” or “Better than national standards.” The area air quality attainment status of the SJVAB and Merced County is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Attainment Status for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin/Merced County
Pollutant California Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment/Severe No Federal Standard1 Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified Sulfates Attainment No Federal Standard Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Standard Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Standard Vinyl Chloride Attainment No Federal Standard Notes: 1 – In 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. However, EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015. Area Designations. Page reviewed January 9, 2015. Accessed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes.htm#reports. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. Updated October 1, 2015. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html.
The SJVAB is in “severe” nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard; “extreme” nonattainment for the revoked federal 1-hour ozone standard; “extreme” nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard; attainment of the federal PM10 standard; nonattainment of the state PM10 standard; and nonattainment for federal and state PM2.5 standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards. The SJVAPCD is required to enact plans designed to bring the basin back to attainment status for ozone and PM2.5.
Criteria Air Pollutants Ozone is not emitted directly into the environment, but is generated from complex chemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG), or non-methane hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) that occur in the presence of sunlight. ROG and NOX generators in Merced County include motor vehicles, recreational boats, other transportation sources, and industrial processes.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 28 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
PM10, or particulate matter, is a complex mixture of primary or directly emitted particles, and secondary particles or aerosol droplets formed in the atmosphere by precursor chemicals. According
to the National Emissions Inventory (2011), approximately 53 percent of PM10 emissions are due to dust (EPA 2015b). The main sources of fugitive dusts are unpaved roads, construction, and paved
roads. Additional sources of PM10 include fuel combustion, mobile sources, industrial processes, agriculture, fires, solvents, and miscellaneous sources.
PM2.5 is atmospheric particulate matter having a particle size less than 2.5 microns (µm) in diameter. These particles are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes.
Air Quality Monitoring The SJVAB’s air quality monitoring network provides information on ambient concentrations of air pollutants. The SJVAPCD operates several monitoring stations in the SJVAB, including two stations
in Merced County, where the air quality data for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 were obtained. Table 5 compares a five-year summary of the highest annual criteria air pollutant emissions collected at these monitoring stations with applicable SAAQS, which are more stringent than the corresponding
NAAQS. Due to the regional nature of these pollutants, ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 are expected to be fairly representative of the project site.
As indicated in Table 5, the O3, PM2.5 and PM10 federal and state standards have been exceeded in Merced County over the past five years, with the exception of the federal PM10 standard, which was not exceeded.
Table 5 Annual Air Quality Data for Merced County Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Pollutant 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014**
Ozone (O3) 1-hour: Monitoring location: Merced County – S Coffee Avenue Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.117 0.102 0.100 0.100 0.100 Days Exceeding State Standard (1-hr avg. 0.09 ppm) 7 2 2 5 3
Ozone (O3) 8-hour: Monitoring location: Merced County – S Coffee Avenue Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.096 0.087 0.086 0.092 0.088 Days Exceeding State Standard (8-hr avg. 0.070 ppm) 31 41 25 31 44 Days Exceeding National Standard (8-hr avg. 0.075 ppm) 14 19 9 15 22
PM10: Monitoring location: Merced County – 2334 M Street Days Exceeding State Standard (Daily Standard 50 µg/m3) 18.4 49.0 * * * Maximum State 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 91.4 75.0 89.4 80.5 92.7 Days Exceeding Federal Standard (Daily Standard 150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 93.4 73.9 89.4 77.4 88.3
PM2.5: Monitoring location: Merced County – 2334 M Street Days Exceeding National 2006 Standard (Daily Standard 35 µg/m3) 10.1 6.6 12.6 35.5 18.2 Maximum National 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 46.9 43.5 48.4 68.9 53.7 Notes: Underlined Values in excess of applicable standard / ppm = parts per million / µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. *Insufficient data to determine the value; **2014 is the latest year of data available as of preparation of this chapter (November 2015). Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015. Air Quality Trend Summaries. Accessed at
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 29 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Potential Differing Effects of the Two Project Variants Air quality impacts are directly assessed for Project Variant 2 only. Since the only difference between Project Variant 1 and 2 that could affect air emissions is that Variant 1 would not include two of proposed baseball/softball fields, construction and operational emissions would be less than those assessed for Variant 2. Because emissions for Variant 1 would be less than those evaluated and discussed in the impact analysis, the environmental conclusions reached for Variant 1 would be the same as those reached for Variant 2. No additional modeling or other revisions to the analysis is necessary.
Air Quality Assessment The SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) has established thresholds for certain criteria pollutants for determining whether a project would have a significant air quality impact. Construction and operational emissions are calculated separately. The SJVAPCD significance thresholds are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds – Criteria Pollutants Threshold of Significance Construction Operational Emissions Pollutant/Precursor Emissions Permitted Equipment and Non-Permitted Equipment (tons/year) Activities (tons/year) and Activities (tons/year) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 10 10 10
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 10 10 10
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 100 100 Sulfur Oxide (SOx) 27 27 27 Notes: The significance of the impacts of the emissions from construction, operational non- permitted equipment and activities, and operational permitted equipment and activities are evaluated separately. The thresholds of significance are based on a calendar year basis. For construction emissions, the annual emissions are evaluated on a rolling 12-month period. Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts” 2015.
Air quality impacts would result from both the construction and operational phases of the SJVCS project.
To streamline the process of assessing significance of criteria pollutant emissions from commonly encountered projects, the SJVAPCD has developed the screening tool, Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). Using project type and size, the SJVAPCD has pre-quantified emissions and determined a size below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. According to the SPAL requirements, no quantification of ozone precursor emissions is needed for projects less than or equal to the size thresholds, by vehicle trips and by project type. If other emission factors such as toxic air contaminants, hazardous materials, asbestos, or odors are apparent, these emissions must be addressed.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 30 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
The proposed project would involve the construction of a new K-12 school over three phases, with a full build-out of 800 students. The institutional land use categories identified in the SPAL applicable to the proposed project include elementary school, junior high school, and high school. Since the proposed school includes all three of these categories, the most conservative project size threshold was selected. The High School land use category has a 1,325-student project size threshold (SJVAPCD 2012). The proposed school project would not exceed the SPAL threshold for this project type since there would be 175 students at the opening of Phase 1 of the project and up to 800 students at full build-out. As stated in the SJVAPCD preliminary response to the project application, project specific emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed District significance thresholds of 10 tons/year of NOX, 10 tons/year ROG, and 15 tons/year of PM10. Therefore, the project qualifies to complete the SPAL approach, and no quantification of ozone precursor emissions would be required.
Question (a) Air Quality Plan: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) As stated above in the discussion of the regulatory environment, the SJVAPCD has attainment plans in place that identify strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The proposed school facility project criteria air emissions would not be expected to exceed thresholds set by SJVAPCD based on project size and proposed operations (SJVAPCD 2015). Also, the proposed educational uses would be consistent with Merced County’s land use designation for the site with approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations. For school projects that are at least 9,000 square feet of educational space, District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) would apply (SJVAPCD letter dated February 23, 2015). Projects that meet the permit application thresholds but are found through the application process to have mitigated emissions of less than two tons per year each of nitrogen oxides and PM10 would not be subject to the emission-reduction requirements of the rule. The Indirect Source Review rule requires projects to mitigate: 20 percent of construction equipment exhaust NOx; 45 percent of construction equipment exhaust PM10; 33 percent of operational NOx over 10 years; and 50 percent of operational PM10 over 10 years. The District encourages on-site mitigation to reduce air pollution, or off-site mitigation fees can be paid to the SJVAPCD if the on-site mitigation measures don’t achieve the required emission reductions.
Additional applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations may include: Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Because several existing residences would be demolished and removed, the project would also be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). To ensure project compliance with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the following mitigation measure would be required:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to applying for final discretionary approval, the project applicant must submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application and comply with District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requirements. Requirements include on-site measures to result in the reduction of 20 percent of construction equipment
exhaust NOx; 45 percent of construction equipment exhaust PM10; 33 percent of operational NOx over 10 years; and 50 percent of operational PM10 over 10 years. If mitigation measures cannot achieve the required emission reductions, then off-site
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 31 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
mitigation fees to be calculated during the AIA process must be paid. The applicant must pay any applicable off-site mitigation fees before issuance of the first building permit.
The project applicant would also need to demonstrate compliance with Regulation VIII
– Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions; and may be subject to additional rules, including, but not limited to Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). The project applicant will be required to implement measures of applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations as noted.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require compliance with applicable Rules and Regulations of the SJVAPCD as described above, and ensure the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any SJVAB attainment plan or the SIP. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Questions (b)(c) Air Quality Standards/Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutants: Less- than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of the proposed project would result in construction and operational emissions, including ROG, CO, SO2, NOx, and fugitive dust. Emission sources from construction and operation of the new school include the following activities: Construction: • Construction of the proposed school would occur over three phases over a 10-year period following project approval. • Phase 1 would occur in 2016 following project approval and is expected to last 9 months. At the opening of Phase 1, the school is estimated to have 175 students in grades 7 through 12, with 25 associated teachers and staff. At the fifth year of operation, the project sponsors forecast a student population of 230 and a total of 30 staff. • Phase 2 construction would would occur 3 to 6 years after completion of Phase 1 (between 2020 and 2023). After completion and opening of Phase 2, the total student population is estimated to be 385 with a supporting staff of 40. • Phase 3 construction would occur between 6 to 10 years after completion of Phase 1 (between 2023 and 2027) over a multi-year period as funding and student enrollment allow. At full build-out of the proposed plan through Phase 3 and full occupancy, the school is projected to have 800 students and 60 staff. • Construction activities include demolition of several existing structures, site grading, and building of school buildings and facilities, parking areas, pedestrian circulation, roadways, and athletic fields. Construction activities resulting in air emissions include employee commute trips, exhaust from construction equipment, fugitive dust from earthmoving activities and vehicle movement on the project site, evaporative emissions from paving of roadway surfaces, and the application of architectural coatings to the buildings. Operation: • Operation activities resulting in air emissions include vehicular trips generated by the students and faculty; area sources (architectural coating, consumer products, and landscaping); and energy use.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 32 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Based on SJVAPCD project screening criteria and the guidance outlined in the GAMAQI, the size of the project indicates that it would qualify as a SPAL project, and would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s emission thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction or operation.
Although the proposed project would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds, the applicant would still be required to comply with Regulation VIII and all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations. A summary of control measures for construction and other earthmoving activities that would generate fugitive dust are included in Regulation VIII as follows:
Pre-Activity: • Pre-water site sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity, and • Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time. During Active Operations: • Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity; or • Construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity. If utilizing wind barriers, control measure B1 above shall also be implemented. • Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface. Temporary Stabilization During Periods of Inactivity: • Restrict vehicular access to the area; and • Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acres or more of disturbed surface area remains unused for seven or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in section 3.53 of Rule 8011. Speed Limitations and Posting of Speed Limit Signs on Uncontrolled Unpaved Access/Haul Roads on Construction Sites: • Limit the speed of vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads within construction sites to a maximum of 15 miles per hour. • Post speed limit signs that meet State and federal Department of Transportation standards at each construction site’s uncontrolled unpaved access/haul road entrance. At a minimum, speed limit signs shall also be posted at least every 500 feet and shall be readable in both directions of travel along uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads. Wind Generated Fugitive Dust Requirements: • Cease outdoor construction, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities that disturb the soil whenever VDE exceeds 20% opacity. Indoor activities such as electrical, plumbing, dry wall installation, painting, and any other activity that does not cause any disturbances to the soil are not subject to this requirement. • Continue operation of water trucks/devices when outdoor construction excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities cease, unless unsafe to do so.
Compliance with Regulation VIII and all other applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations as described above and required in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that the proposed construction-related emissions are reduced, and would not exceed SJVAPCD significance criteria.
Because project construction and operation emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds, and the proposed project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations as required in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would not emit air pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 33 April 2016 Environmental Analysis violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. A less-than- significant impact would result, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Questions (d)(e) Sensitive Receptors/Odors: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside. Existing land uses and facilities immediately surrounding the project site include single-family residences and rural residential uses to the south and west; and the raised tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, Santa Fe Drive, and agricultural industrial uses to the north and east. The proposed project, as a school, is not expected to result in the generation of significant odors or hazardous air pollutants.
During construction, some odors and hazardous pollutants could result from vehicles and equipment using diesel fuels. Construction vehicles would be required to limit idling time compliant with the ARB guidelines. Cancer risk associated with diesel exhaust exposure is typically associated with chronic exposure. Because the level of overall emissions would be low, and the duration of emissions would be temporary, cancer risk and odors from diesel exhaust during construction would be considered less than significant.
During operations, activities resulting in toxic air emissions or odors would predominantly consist of diesel emission from school buses, if any are provided. However, school buses must comply with the ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) guidelines to limit idling time. Therefore, project operation emissions would not generate significant toxic air contaminants or odors.
Because no substantial levels of air emissions would occur during construction or operation activities, and no adverse levels of toxic air emissions would occur, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 34 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ✓
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ✓
c) 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? ✓
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ✓
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ✓
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ✓
The following evaluation of biological resources and the potential environmental effects of implementing the San Joaquin Valley Christian School project variants are based on the following document that is appended to this Initial Study in its entirety (see Appendix B). • Reconnaissance-Level Biological Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Sensitive and Listed Species for the Christian Valley School Project, Merced County California prepared by Kamansky’s Ecological Consulting, September 30, 2015.
REGULATORY SETTING The following discussion summarizes the various federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations that apply to this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 35 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Federal Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include wet environments such as wetlands, rivers, creeks, tidal and ocean waters, lakes, and ponds. The Corps does not regulate all water bodies and wetlands; excluded are isolated waters and waters that do not have a significant nexus to navigable waters.
Any discharge requiring a Section 404 permit also requires Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Discharges into state waters not requiring a Corps permit require obtaining Waste Discharge Requirements from the CRWQCB.
Federal Endangered Species Act - The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides a process to protect federally listed threatened and endangered species. The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 9 of FESA prohibits the “take” of species listed under FESA, except when authorized by a permit; take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” In addition, special management considerations or protections may apply to specific portions of the geographical area occupied by a species at the time of its listing (designated as Critical Habitat). All project sponsors, except federal agencies, are required to consult with USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries on actions that may have direct or indirect impacts on species listed under FESA, and to obtain a permit under Section 10 of FESA for any “take” of such a species that might result from implementing the proposed project. Violations involving take can result in criminal or civil penalties.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except as specified in Department of Interior regulations. Under a similar provision in the California Department of Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or owls, or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of these birds except as provided in the Code or associated regulations.
State of California California Endangered Species Act - The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which is similar to the federal ESA. CESA requires state agencies to consult with CDFW when preparing CEQA documents to assure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any listed species. CDFW has also developed a list of Species of Special Concern, which includes species in California whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened.
Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code – CDFW administers Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The CDFW must be notified for any project that may impact the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by CDFW.
California Native Plant Society - The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low population numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. Potential impacts to CNPS-listed plants are considered under CEQA review.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 36 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Merced County Merced County General Plan. Goal #1 of the Natural Resources Element of the 2030 Merced County General Plan states: “Preserve and protect, through coordination with the public and private sectors, the biological resources of the County.” There are several policies in the Natural Resources Element that address protection, preservation, and enhancement of biological resources of the County, and additional policies in the General Plan that also seek to protect natural resources. Relevant policies have been used to guide the evaluation of potential effects to biological resources, and in the assessment of environmental significance conclusions, and the development of mitigation measures. The Merced County General Plan also contains an Open Space Action Plan (OSAP). The OSAP includes implementation programs to ensure that areas designated as sensitive or significant resources in the Open Space and Conservation Chapter of the General Plan are protected, managed, or preserved in a manner compatible with the resources of the specified area. One of the primary implementing tools of the County’s OSAP is the Open Space Development Review System. The system is basically a process for assessing the appropriateness of proposed developments, including their compatibility with surrounding environmental constraints and resources.
These goals and policies were considered in the evaluation of the proposed project and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures below.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located north of Dan Ward Road, between the intersections of Dan Ward Road with Ranchero Lane and Beachwood Drive in the Franklin-Beachwood area of unincorporated Merced County. Approval of the project would allow the construction and operation of a Pre- Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on 53.75 acres. As proposed, the project would be constructed in three phases over a 10-year period. The number of students at completion of each of the three phases would be 230, 385, and 800 respectively.
The project site consists of fallow agricultural land that has been disked for weed control and fire protection. Existing developed uses on the project site consist of four existing residences, a barn, and other outbuildings. The project is located in an area transitioning from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses. Existing land uses and facilities immediately surrounding the project site include single-family residences and rural residential uses to the south and west; and the raised tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, Santa Fe Drive, and agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses to the north and east.
The project site can be found on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Atwater 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, in Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 13 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; 37°20.004ʹ N, 120°31.955ʹ W.
Biological Setting The field component of the biological assessment was conducted over two days. Site visits occurred on May 27, June 20th and July 3rd, 2015 during daylight and twilight hours. B. Kamansky, R. Hansen, and J. Kamansky conducted the site visits and all investigations for Special Status Species. Conditions during surveys were clear and hot, cloud cover was 0 percent and temperatures ranged from 79° F. (at 9 a.m.) to 102° F. (at 4 p.m.).
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 37 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Biological Communities Associations of plant species that grow in assemblages under similar ecological conditions are called plant communities (also known as natural communities or biotic communities). Generally, they are named for the dominant species found in the association. The definition of plant communities is important not only because it identifies types of plants that are present, but also because it indicates habitat types and animal species that may be found in the community. In this Initial Study, common names and scientific (Latin binomial) names of plants will both be given the first time they are mentioned; thereafter only common names will be used.
According to the natural community classification scheme used by Holland (1986), the proposed SJVCS is located in a part of the southern San Joaquin Valley that originally contained components of two natural communities prior to development: Valley Grassland and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool. Although the ditch bank association occurs adjacent to the property, the proposed project would not affect this area, and the association will not be covered in this analysis.
The land on the subject property is disturbed and does not support historical flora and fauna. The project site does not support extensive wild plant diversity or cover, and there are very few patches of native vegetation. Dominant species observed within the proposed school’s construction footprint during the field survey include the following annual plants: hare barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneaum), whitestem filaree (Erodium moschatum) and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). A list of all plant species encountered is provided in Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Wildlife Species While no special status species of invertebrates were observed on the site, various common invertebrate species utilize the site and surrounding areas, providing food for other animal populations. Eight vertebrate species, all birds, were recorded at the SJVCS project site during the field surveys. See Appendix B of this Initial Study. The small patches of grasslands and few ornamental trees on the site support common species such as doves. The areas with ornamental trees support winter resident birds, neotropical migrants such as western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis), and raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamacansis), barn owls (Tyto alba) and Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsonii), although no Swainson’s hawks were observed nesting or foraging on the site. Red-tailed hawks were observed foraging over the property and other raptors such as great- horned owls and barn owls are known to nest and forage in the vicinity of the project site.
California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechii) and pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) were present on the site. Two burrows on the site appeared to be relatively fresh badger dens. These and other mammal dens could also house San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and burrowing owls.
No amphibians or reptiles were observed on the subject property during field work. The site does provide habitat for common reptile species such as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis). No fish were observed on the subject property during fieldwork.
Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species This section summarizes an evaluation of the potential presence of special-status species within the project site. The special-status species evaluation considers those species identified as having relative scarcity and/or declining populations by the USFWS or CDFW. Special-status species include those formally listed as threatened or endangered, those proposed for formal listing,
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 38 April 2016 Environmental Analysis candidates for federal listing, and those classified as species of special concern by CDFW. Also included are those plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California by the CNPS, and those plant and animal taxa meeting the criteria for listing under Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation of special status species includes three steps: identification of those special status species known to occur in the project vicinity; a field study of the project site; and an assessment of the existing habitats on the site and in the vicinity available for special status species.
To identify those special status species that are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site, a record search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was conducted on May 27, 2015 (CNDDB 2015) to identify all documented sightings of special-status plant and wildlife species within the Atwater, California and surrounding eight 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangles (see Appendix B).
The field and habitat surveys revealed that the majority of the project site is extremely disturbed, and has been graded and cultivated in the past. Based on the surveys conducted by Kamansky’s Ecological Consulting, the overall project area does not support any special-status plant species, but does contain marginally suitable habitat for several sensitive wildlife species listed by state and/or federal regulatory agencies known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Occurrences of thirty-two special status plant species have been recorded in the region of the project, many associated with vernal pools. No vernal pools are located on the project site. No individuals of any of the special status plant species were found during surveys of the project site, although surveys were conducted during a long-term drought, which may have hindered detection. See Section J.1 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information.
Six invertebrate species have been documented in the area of the project, five of which are associated with vernal pools. Since no vernal pool habitat is present on the site, none of these five species were detected. Because little undisturbed habitat for the sixth species exists on the project site, none were expected or detected. See Section J.2 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information.
Fourteen sensitive bird species were reported in the vicinity of the project site, many as seasonal migrants. Of these species, four were not observed and have no potential to be found on the project site due to habitat constraints; three may use the site during migration or during certain seasons of the year, but were not observed during field surveys; five species have the potential to forage or nest on the site, but were not observed during field surveys; and three species, Swainson’s hawk (foraging) Western burrowing owl (nesting and foraging), and Loggerhead shrike (nesting and foraging), were observed in the project vicinity and could potentially use the project site. See Section J.4 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information. Swainson’s hawk, Western burrowing owl, and Loggerhead shrike are discussed more fully below.
The Swainson’s hawk prefers open habitats. These include: mixed and short grass grasslands with scattered trees or shrubs for perching; dry grasslands; irrigated meadows; and edges between two habitat types (ecotones). Within California, Swainson’s hawks favor agricultural areas (particularly alfalfa fields), juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and oak savannas. Over 95 percent of the nesting site for this species is estimated to be on private lands. In the summer months, Swainson’s hawks
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 39 April 2016 Environmental Analysis primarily eat insects, birds, and small mammals, occasionally taking reptiles, amphibians, and other invertebrates.
During migration and in the winter, the hawk’s diet consists mainly of insects. The hawks appear to exploit the abundance of prey made available due to the effects of certain farming activities. Within California, Swainson’s hawks begin nesting in late March and the young usually leave the nest by the end of July. In the Central Valley they [typically] nest in riparian areas. This association with riparian habitat is most likely due to the lack of trees in intensively cultivated and industrially developed areas.
The summary results of the CNDDB records search (Table 1 of Appendix B) includes Swainson’s hawk records in the Atwater, Cressey, El Nido, Merced, Sandy Mush, Turner Ranch, Winton, and Yosemite Lake quads. Records indicate at least three hawk nests in the vicinity – two were approximately one mile from the site and another was approximately three miles from the site. These sites were investigated and examined during surveys to determine if Swainson’s hawks were using the sites.
Focused surveys for Swainson’s hawks were performed in the area during a time when they were detected nesting and foraging in other areas in Merced County. While red-tailed hawks were observed nesting and foraging in the area, no Swainson’s hawks were observed on the site during the June and July 2015 field surveys which were focused on detecting this species in the area. Suitable foraging habitat exists on the site, and suitable foraging and nesting habitat exists in surrounding areas. The species occurs in the CNDDB record and was detected nesting nearby, approximately five miles away.
The Western burrowing owl prefers short grass prairie and other sparsely-vegetated areas where foraging is optimal. No western burrowing owls were found on or near the site. It is possible that they could be denning and foraging in the fallow fields, canals, and other areas found nearby, and appropriate habitat, including abundant prey and ground squirrel burrows, was found on the site.
Loggerhead shrikes were observed adjacent to the site during field surveys. The site includes foraging habitat for this species; some nesting habitat exists on the site and in adjacent areas.
Seven amphibian and reptile species have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site, six of which are associated with vernal pools or other water features. Since no vernal pool habitat or other appropriate water features are present on the site, none of these five species would be expected on the project site, and none were detected. Appropriate upland habitat for the seventh species is not available on the project site; hence this species was neither expected nor detected during field surveys. See Section J.3 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information.
Nine special status mammal species have been noted in the project vicinity. Of these, appropriate habitat does not exist for five species, and these species were not observed. Two species, San Joaquin kit fox and American badger, could forage or den on the project site, although no individuals of these species were observed during field surveys. See Section J.5 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information. San Joaquin kit fox and American badger are discussed more fully below.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 40 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
San Joaquin kit foxes inhabit grasslands and scrublands, many of which have been extensively modified. Types of modified habitats include grazed annual grasslands. Dens are scarce in areas with shallow soils because of the proximity to bedrock, high water tables, or impenetrable hardpan [or claypan] layers. Kit foxes are active year-round and are primarily nocturnal. No San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the field surveys. Potential kit fox/ground squirrel dens do occur on the site. No known kit fox dens (or confirmed kit fox den sign) were detected on any of the surveys. There was also no evidence of kit fox tracks or scat anywhere on the site.
While no American badgers were observed on the site, there are potential den sites within the project. This species often dens in hillsides and requires large undisturbed habitat for foraging. Large areas of suitable habitat were not observed on the site, but suitable habitat exists in the area and potential badger dens were observed on the site.
Ten fish species have been documented in the area of the project, all of which are associated with permanent water sources. Since no such habitat is present on the site, none of these ten species were expected to occur, and none were detected. See Section K.1 of Appendix B of this Initial Study for more information.
Sensitive Habitats The only sensitive habitats potentially found on the project site are Northern Claypan Vernal Pool and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool. Because of the past agricultural disturbance of the site, including farming, leveling, and discing, neither of these sensitive habitats is currently found within the project area, even in degraded form.
Migratory Corridors/Animal Movement The project site is surrounded on the south and west by existing residential development. Nearby agricultural areas to the north and east are separated from the project site by the raised bed of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Santa Fe Drive, a four-lane roadway. The nearest natural habitat providing for animal movement or a migratory corridor is located along the riparian corridors of Black Rascal Creek and Bear Creek. These corridors are located approximately 1.0 and 1.3 miles south of the project site respectively, and are separated from the site by intervening urban development and cultivated and managed agricultural lands.
Habitat Conservation Plans No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan has been approved for the project area by Merced County.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Each of the project variants would disrupt the majority of habitat remaining on the project site. Project variant 1 shown in Figure 3 would leave an undeveloped right-of-way for the future extension of Ranchero Lane through much of the project site. While the development of project variant 1 would not directly affect this reserved right-of-way, it would permit the future development of Ranchero Lane, and, thus result in the indirect disruption of the right-of-way area. Therefore, the environmental effects on biological resources of each of the project variants would be similar.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 41 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question a: Special-Status Species. Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) Although the majority of the project site has been disturbed by previous agricultural activities, and little native or non-native vegetation exists, the project area nonetheless could serve as foraging and/or nesting habitat for three special status bird species, and as foraging and potential denning habitat for two special status mammal species. The site does not support any special-status plant species and, other than the five species cited above, does not contain any suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species listed by state and/or federal regulatory agencies and known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. A large area of agricultural land exists to the south and west.
Forty-seven (47) Special Status animal species are known to occur in the general vicinity of the proposed SJVCS project. Implementation of the proposed project may remove up to 51.75 acres of potential raptor foraging habitat. Field surveys conducted during the biological evaluation documented the presence of special status animal species and habitat on and adjacent to the site. Red-tail hawks and Swainson’s hawks were observed nearby, and foraging habitat for these and other raptors exists on the site and in adjacent fields. Raptor nesting trees exist adjacent to the site, although no raptors were detected nesting in these trees. Raptors were observed in and around these trees, and a potential nest was detected several miles to the north of the site. A loggerhead shrike was also observed during surveys. Potential badger, kit fox and burrowing owl dens were identified the western portion of the property.
Focused surveys for Swainson’s hawks were performed in the project area during a time when they were detected nesting and foraging in other areas in Merced County. While red-tailed hawks were observed nesting and foraging in the area, no Swainson’s hawks were observed on the site during the June and July, 2015 field surveys that were focused on detecting this species in the area. Suitable foraging habitat exists on the site, and suitable foraging and nesting habitat exists in surrounding areas. The species occurs in the CNDDB record and was detected nesting nearby during the June and July 2015 field surveys, approximately five miles away. No suitable nesting habitat was identified on the project site. Although no suitable nest trees are located on the project site, construction activities could disrupt potential nesting activity in adjacent areas. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project variants would result in the loss of up to 51.75 acres of potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. These would be significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO -1b, and BIO -3 would prevent disruption of nesting, and would compensate for the loss of foraging habitat. For sensitive bird species, Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b rely on the CDFW permit process and mitigation requirements to avoid “take” of special status species. Although the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of an agency other than Merced County, the required measures must be completed prior to commencement of any activities that would result in these impacts, and compliance with the CDFW permit requirements would fully mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat to reduce this impact to less than significant. No residual impacts would occur for this species, and the impact to Swainson’s hawk would be less- than-significant after mitigation.
No western burrowing owls were found on or near the site. It is possible that they could be denning and foraging in the fallow fields, canals, and other areas found nearby; appropriate habitat including abundant prey and ground squirrel burrows were found on the site. Suitable nesting habitat for western burrowing owls is located on the project site, and construction activities could disrupt potential nesting activity. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project variants would result in the loss of foraging habitat for this species. These would be significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1b, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would avoid harm to any birds present on the
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 42 April 2016 Environmental Analysis project site, prevent disruption of nesting, and compensate for the loss of foraging habitat. No residual impacts would occur for this species, and the impact to Western burrowing owl would be less-than-significant after mitigation.
Loggerhead shrike was observed adjacent to the site during field surveys. The site contains foraging for the species, and some nesting habitat is present on the site and in adjacent areas and construction activities could disrupt potential nesting activity. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project variants would result in the loss of foraging habitat for this species. These would be significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1b, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would avoid harm to any birds present on the project site, prevent disruption of nesting, and compensate for the loss of foraging habitat. No residual impacts would occur for this species, and the impact to Loggerhead shrike would be less-than-significant after mitigation.
No San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the field surveys. Potential kit fox/ground squirrel dens do occur on the site. No known kit fox dens (or confirmed kit fox den sign) were detected on any of the surveys. There was also no evidence of kit fox tracks or scat anywhere on the site. San Joaquin kit fox is a special status animal species, which is known to occur regionally. San Joaquin kit fox may occasionally pass through the site while foraging and could den on the site. Potential kit fox dens were identified the northern and western portion of the property. Implementation of the proposed project variants could interrupt or disrupt denning activities. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would prevent harm to kit fox denning, foraging, or transiting the project site. Implementation of the recommendations provided in the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance would reduce the potential impacts to both San Joaquin Kit fox and American badger by requiring preconstruction surveys for the kit fox and badger, preventative measures to avoid potential impacts to these species, and compulsory action should any animal be encountered.
No residual impacts would occur for this species, and the impact to San Joaquin kit fox for would be less-than-significant after mitigation.
While no American badgers were observed on the site, there are potential den sites on the site. This species often dens in hillsides and requires large undisturbed habitat for foraging. Large areas of suitable habitat were not observed on the site, but suitable habitat exists in the area and potential badger dens were observed on the site. Potential American badger dens were identified the northern and western portion of the property. Implementation of the proposed project variants could interrupt or disrupt denning activities. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would prevent harm to badger denning, foraging, or transiting the project site. No residual impacts would occur for this species, and the impact to the American badger for would be less-than-significant after mitigation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of the project, the project applicant shall consult with CDFW to determine if mitigation is necessary for the loss of approximately 51.75 acres of potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The project applicant shall submit documentation of CDFW consultation to Merced County. Should CDFW consider there to be impacts to Swainson’s hawk requiring mitigation under CDFW guidelines, CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures shall be required as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-1b.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 43 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Following consultation with CDFW, should it be determined necessary, CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures shall be required for this project and are hereby incorporated by reference: 1. Protocol Nesting Surveys of the Project Area and Surrounding Area. Prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, the project applicant shall conduct a protocol-level survey of the project area and within the surrounding area in conformance with the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley,” Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (May 31, 2000). This protocol prescribes minimum standards for survey equipment, mode of survey, angle and distance to tree, speed, visual and audible clues, distractions, notes and observations, and timing of surveys. To meet the CDFW recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawks, surveys should be conducted for a one-half-mile radius around all project activities, where accessible, and if active nesting is identified within the one-half-mile radius, consultation is required. a. Nesting surveys can only be performed between January 1 and July 30 and will vary depending on seasonal conditions and the actual nesting period. If the protocol survey process is started outside of this survey window but during the time when there could be nestlings or fledglings (July 30-September 15), the project applicant and qualified raptor biologist shall consult with CDFW to determine appropriate action, including modification of survey requirements based on the proposed construction period. If construction is to take place between September 15 and February 1 (non-breeding season), surveys will not be required. b. Surveys must be performed by a qualified raptor biologist. c. A written report with the pre-construction survey results must be provided to the Community and Economic Development Department and CDFW within 30 days prior to commencement of construction-related activities. The report shall include: the date of the report, authors and affiliations, contact information, introduction, methods, study location, including map, results, discussion, and literature cited. d. The project applicant must submit CNDDB forms for Swainson’s hawk occurrences and for any other listed, fully protected, or species of special concern encountered and positively identified during the surveys. www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb. If the required nesting surveys show there are no active nests within the appropriate radius as defined by the technical advisory referenced above, then no additional mitigation for active nests will be required as outlined in BIO-1b(2) below. 2. Nest Avoidance. If active nests are documented on the CNDDB database, or other environmental study, or are discovered during the protocol survey within one-half-mile radius of project activities, the project applicant must obtain CESA 2081 Management Authorization prior to the start of construction-related activities and issuance of the first building permit. CDFW pre-approved mitigation measures to avoid nest impacts during construction must include: a. No intensive new disturbances (for example, heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing activities), habitat conversions, or other project-related activities that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, should be initiated within one-half-mile (in rural areas) or one-quarter- mile (in urbanized areas) of an active nest between March 1 and September 15, or
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 44 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
August 15 if written CESA 2081 Management Authorization obtained from CDFW prior to such disturbance. b. Nest trees shall not be removed unless there is no feasible way of avoiding it. If a nest tree must be removed, written CESA 2081 Management Authorization must be obtained from CDFW prior to tree removal. Such written authorization must specify: i. The tree removal period, which can typically be expected to be between October 1 and February 1. ii. The conditions required to offset the loss of the nest tree. c. If disturbances, habitat conversions, or other project-related activities, that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, are necessary, within the nest protection buffer zone, monitoring of the nest site by a qualified raptor biologist, funded by the project applicant, shall be required, to determine if the nest is abandoned. If the nest is abandoned, but the nestlings are still alive, the project proponent is required to fund the recovery and hacking, that is the controlled release of captive reared young of the nestling. d. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine maintenance activities within one-quarter-mile of an active nest are not prohibited. 3. Loss of Foraging Habitat. Following consultation with CDFW as required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1a, if CDFW concurs that mitigation pursuant to CDFW guidelines is appropriate to compensate for the loss of foraging habitat, the project applicant shall obtain CESA 2081 Management Authorization from CDFW prior to the start of construction- related activities or issuance of the first building permit. The extent of any necessary mitigation shall be determined by CDFW. Generally, CDFW requires mitigation for foraging habitat based on the presence of active nests within 10 miles of the project. If an active nest site is identified within a certain distance of the project boundary, the project proponent ordinarily will be required by CDFW to provide off-site foraging habitat management lands at a specified Mitigation Ratio, as follows:
Distance from Project Boundary Mitigation Acreage Ratio* Within 1 mile 1.00:1** Between 1 and 5 miles 0.75:1 Between 5 and 10 miles 0.50:1 *Ratio means [acres of mitigation land] to [acres of foraging habitat impacted]. **This ratio shall be 0.5:1 if the acquired lands can be actively managed for prey production.
CDFW provides options for off-site habitat management by fee title acquisition or conservation easement acquisition with CDFW-approved management plan, and by the acquisition of comparable habitat. Mitigation credits may be pursued through a CDFW- approved mitigation bank for Swainson’s hawk impacts in Merced County. Go to: www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue. The CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures are found at “DFG Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s hawks in the Central Valley of California,” CDFG (November 8, 1994). The referenced report contains recommended assessment and management measures to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 45 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
In summary, to mitigate impacts to a level below significance, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b requires the following: • Prior to obtaining the first building permit, the project applicant shall conduct protocol- level surveys for Swainson’s hawk (MM BIO-1b(1)). • The applicant shall obtain written CESA 2081 Management Authorization from the CDFW for nesting impacts (if active nests are documented within one-half-mile radius of project activities) and for foraging habitat impacts (if determined necessary) prior to the start of construction-related activities or issuance of the first building permit (MM BIO-1b(2)). • If construction-related activity would result in the removal of an active nest during the Swainson’s hawk breeding season, the applicant shall obtain prior written authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and to avoid impacts to actively nesting Swainson’s hawks (MM BIO-1b(3)).
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Within 14 days prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall complete a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls within appropriate seasonal buffer zone of all areas disturbed for the proposed project. The surveys will be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). If owls are identified in or near the area to be disturbed, buffer areas around the occupied burrows shall be established, inside of which no disturbance shall occur. The size of the buffer area required would vary depending on whether construction occurs during non-breeding or breeding season and the level of disturbance. If avoidance requirements cannot be met, passive relocation of owls, using one-way doors, may be implemented, but only during the non-breeding season and with CDFW approval. For each vacated burrow and its surrounding area that would be excavated or converted by project construction, alternative unoccupied natural or artificial burrows or land shall be provided outside of the construction area. Consultation with CDFW is required for mitigation recommendations if a recently occupied burrow is destroyed.
If burrowing owls occur within the project area, additional avoidance measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction: • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period from 1 February through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • If disturbing owls is unavoidable, appropriate buffer distances within Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be followed or CDFW will be consulted • Avoid direct destruction of burrows during construction. • Prior to construction, conduct a Worker Awareness Program (environmental education) to inform project workers of their responsibilities regarding sensitive biological resources and increase the on-site worker’s commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows prior to inspection.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 46 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
• Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). • Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: To reduce project-related impacts to active bird nests and to reduce the potential for construction activities to interrupt breeding and rearing behaviors of birds, the following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities for each Phase of the project:
• No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of nesting birds if ground clearing or construction activities will be initiated during the breeding season (February 2 through September 14). The proposed area of construction and potential nesting areas within 0.5 miles of the construction area shall be surveyed. Surveys will be performed by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. • Construction shall not occur within a 500-foot buffer surrounding nests of raptors (including burrowing owls) or a 250-foot buffer surrounding nests of migratory birds. • If construction within these buffer areas is required, or if nests must be removed to allow continuation of construction, prior approval must be obtained from the CDFW. • No restrictions are required for avian species for construction activities that occur during the non-breeding season (September 15 to February 1) or after the young have fledged.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To minimize potential impacts to both the San Joaquin Kit Fox and American badger, prior to any construction activities within the project site, the project applicant shall follow the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). The measures that are listed below have been excerpted from those guidelines and would protect both San Joaquin Kit fox and American badgers. These surveys would also detect raptor and migratory songbirds activity in the area. 1. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction of any Phase, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist over all areas of ground disturbance for construction to determine presence/absence of this species in accordance with USFWS recommendations. If a suitable den (occupied or unoccupied) is observed by the surveying biologist or worker, a 200-foot buffer will be established around the den. Prior to working within the buffer, the USFWS will be contacted for guidance. 2. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However, if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited. 3. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of San Joaquin kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 47 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured San Joaquin kit fox is discovered, USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted as noted under Measure 11 referenced below. 4. San Joaquin kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a San Joaquin kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. 5. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction site. 6. No firearms shall be allowed on the project area. 7. If any San Joaquin kit fox or American badger, or their sign, are detected on site during the preconstruction survey, dogs and cats shall be kept off the area to prevent harassment, mortality of San Joaquin kit foxes or American badgers, and/or destruction of their dens. 8. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of San Joaquin kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox. 9. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped San Joaquin kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service. 10. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS should be contacted for guidance. 11. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFW contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist at (530) 934-9309. The USFWS should be contacted at the numbers below. 12. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 48 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact is Mr. Paul Hoffman at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309. 13. New sightings of San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the CNDDB. A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the USFWS at the address below. 14. Any project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605, Sacramento, California, 95825-1846, (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600.
Questions (b) (c): Riparian Habitat/Wetlands: Less-than-Significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of either variant of the proposed school project would not result in the modification of wetlands or result in the loss of riparian or vernal pool habitat, since no such resources are located within the area that would be disturbed by construction of the proposed facilities. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The National Wetland Inventory map does not depict any wetlands on the project site, and none were observed during the field surveys (USFWS 2015). No marshes or vernal pools occur on the project site.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to wetlands, riparian and vernal pool habitat, jurisdictional waters of the U.S., or other sensitive habitat types or sensitive natural communities with implementation of the proposed school project. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (d) Migratory Wildlife: Less-than-Significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of the proposed SJVCS project would not interfere with a wildlife movement corridor, migratory patterns, or wildlife within a nursery site, since there is a considerable amount of open space in the greater vicinity that can continue to be used for wildlife movement. There are no creeks, valleys, or other wildlife movement corridors on the project site. A considerable amount of open space/land to the north and east in the vicinity of the subject property, and the channels of Black Rascal Creek and Bear Creek would continue to be used by native species for home range and dispersal movements. Therefore, the proposed SJVC school project variants would result in a less than significant effect on regional wildlife movements. As there would be no project impact, no mitigation measures would be required.
For a discussion of potential impacts to transient foraging San Joaquin kit fox and American badger during the construction period, see Question IVa, above.
Question (e) Conflict with Policy/Ordinance: Less-than-Significant Impact. (Both project variants) The Merced County General Plan contains an Open Space Action Plan (OSAP). The Open Space Development Review System (OSDRS) is one of the primary implementing tools of the County’s Open Space Action Plan. Through such a review system, daily planning and permit approval decisions should reflect and implement the adopted policies and development standards of the 2030 General Plan. The system is intended for utilization both by developers in the design and building of projects, and by planners and decision makers in review of projects for conformance
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 49 April 2016 Environmental Analysis with County policy. The system is basically a process for assessing the appropriateness of proposed developments, including their compatibility with surrounding environmental constraints and resources. This system of review is required of all projects for which a building permit or other entitlement is necessary such as a land division or use permit, as well as during policy and ordinance amendment. Table 7 includes an evaluation of project consistency with the Open Space Development Review System as set forth in the County’s General Plan Open Space Action Plan.
Table 7 Consistency of the Proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project with the Merced County General Plan Open Space Development Review System
Question Response Discussion
1. Basic Land Use Category, Zone Code Yes The proposed project variants are consistent with the Consistency and Community Service Merced County Rural Residential Center land use Availability Determination designation of the General Plan. With issuance of the requested Conditional Use Permit, the project variants are consistent with the Single Family Residential zoning designation. As evaluated in this Initial Study, the SJVCS project impact to public services and facilities has been found to be less than significant.
2. Open Space Inventory Map and Data Base Yes While the project site is currently in a fallow Review agricultural use and qualifies as de facto open space, the project site has been designated and planned by Merced County for urban uses. Implementation of the project variants would not result in the loss of an identified or protected open space resource.
3. Demonstration by the permit applicant of Yes Through development of the CEQA and planning consultation with the California Department review processes, consultation with applicable of Fish and Wildlife, the Central Valley agencies has been conducted on behalf of the project Regional Water Quality Control Board, the applicant. Where mitigation measures have been State Water Resources Control Board, the suggested by resource agencies, they have been U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National included in the Initial Study. Marine Fisheries Service, and/or the Army Corps of Engineers, and any water purveyor serving the project area, as appropriate, to evaluate resources that could be affected by the proposed action; and proof of issuance of permits by these agencies, as required
4. Environmental Determination Yes With issuance of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, an environmental determination was made that the proposed project variants would not have a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the record of expanding upon the determination.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 50 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Consistency of the Proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project with the Merced County General Plan Open Space Development Review System
Question Response Discussion
5. Land Use and Sensitive Resource To be The proposed project variants are located in an Compatibility Determination determined urbanizing area of Merced County. Adjacent land by the uses include residential, commercial, and industrial Planning uses. The project variants would be consistent with the Commission requirements of the Merced County Zoning Ordinance with implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts on adjacent residences from noise, hazards, and glare were identified for each of the project variants. These impacts were found to be less than significant following mitigation. The Merced County Planning Commission will make the ultimate compatibility finding. Source: Merced County, 2013; Planning Partners, 2015.
As set forth in Table 7, the project variants would be consistent with the requirements of the OSDRS process, and there would be no conflict with local policies protecting biological resources. No significant impact would result, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (f) Conflict with Adopted Plan: No Impact. (Both project variants) No approved Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that include are in place. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional or state habitat conservation plans. There would be no impact, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ✓
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ✓
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ✓
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ✓
Records of the known cultural resources found in Merced County are included in the files of the Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Resources Information System. The Central California Information Center (CCIC), housed at California State University, Stanislaus, locally administers these records. A cultural resources records search was conducted at the CCIC for the project site and surrounding area to determine its historic and cultural sensitivity (Napton 2015). The records search may be inspected at the Merced County Community and Economic Development
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 51 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Department, 2222 ‘M’ Street, Merced, CA 95340, California, Monday through Friday during standard business hours. The following information summarizes cultural resources with the potential to occur within the proposed project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A cultural resource survey and field inspection of the project site was conducted by Napton Consulting Services on Tuesday, May 11, 2015. The surveyors observed that, with the exception of four residences on Dan Ward Road, the project site features fallow fields that have been harrowed and are devoid of crops. The fields have been reduced to agricultural grade, and a significant amount of soil has been stripped from the field adjacent to the railroad. (Napton 2015)
Paleontological Resources The project site is situated in an area not known to have produced significant paleontological resources, although fossils have been found along Black Rascal Creek south of the project area. An extensive and deep mantle of marine and eroded continental deposits of fossilized organic material covers the project area. Over the course of many centuries these deposits buried fossil-bearing rock formations. The extensive outwash deposits along the courses of rivers, such as the Merced and San Joaquin, include localities where remains of Pleistocene and Tertiary fauna and flora could be found. The occurrence of finding fossil remains is unpredictable. (Napton 2015)
Archaeological Resources Regional archeological investigations have led to identification of three major cultural phases in the Central Valley. From earliest to latest these are the Windmiller, Cosumnes, and Hotchkiss cultural phases. The archaeology of Merced County has not been reviewed comprehensively, however, investigations have been undertaken along the Merced River, and in western Merced County. Research in the Pacheco Pass-San Luis Reservoir area resulted in the identification of four local archaeological phases: the Positas, Pacheco, Gonzaga, and Panoche. This sequence remains the most firmly established local cultural chronology pertaining to western Merced County. (Napton 2015)
Ethnographic Background The project area is located within the former territory of the Penutian- speaking Yokuts, a tribe that at the time of contact occupied an area extending east from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range well into the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, north to the American River, and south to the upper San Joaquin River. The principal area occupied by the Yokuts is west of the confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers. The project area lies within the territory formerly occupied by the Northern Valley Yokuts. Given the ethnographic literature pertaining to the project region and its surrounding area, including early ethnographic documentation, the literature suggests that imperishable features and artifacts could be found during cultural resource reconnaissance of this area of Merced County. (Napton 2015)
Historical Resources Regionally, the historical setting dates to when the Spanish entered California in the 1700s and rapidly spread northward along the coast. The Spanish presence in the Central Valley, however, was limited to occasional forays in search of fugitive Native American neophytes. American exploration of the Central Valley began with the arrival of explorers and traders, including Jedediah Smith, Ewing Young, and J. R. Walker. In 1844, John Fremont and his party, heading south, crossed
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 52 April 2016 Environmental Analysis present-day Merced County. Following John Marshall’s discovery of gold in the tailrace of Sutter’s Mill in January of 1848, miners flocked to California. News of the find brought thousands of Argonauts to the Valley and the adjacent Sierra Nevada “Mother Lode” region. One of the indirect consequences of the Gold Rush was the presence in the Central Valley of ferry operators, storekeepers, innkeepers, and others who supplied miners with goods and services. (Napton 2015)
During the 1850s, the more productive parts of the Central Valley were settled and later, in 1872, the Central Pacific Railroad entered Merced County. The railroad connected the San Joaquin Valley with markets in the north and south, and importantly, the east. By 1874, much of Merced County was under cultivation. As controlled irrigation and impounding flood waters developed in the Central Valley in 1888, most of the Valley floor was broken up into numerous small farms. The Valley began to take on its present densely settled, highly productive character. U.S. 99 was paved through the county in about 1913, later resulting in an expanded network of paved roads, which represent the on-going trend toward increased urbanization, urban centers, and reduction of agricultural land.
Locally, the historical setting of Merced County was established as the southwest part of Mariposa County. The City of Merced began as "Bear Creek" and railroad surveyors platted the townsite. In 1872, Merced was selected as the county seat. The historical context of the general project area has been documented, but provides no specific information regarding historic occupation of the proposed project tract.
Records Search Records of known cultural resources found in Merced County are included in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) files of the Office of Historic Preservation. These records are locally administered by the Central California Information Center (CCIC) housed at California State University, Stanislaus. Results of the May 2015 records search show that no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project site or vicinity have been reported to the information center.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK State and federal legislation requires the protection of historical and cultural resources. In 1971, President’s Executive Order No. 11593 required that all federal agencies initiate procedures to preserve and maintain cultural resources by nomination and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1980, Governor’s Executive Order No. B-64-80 required that state agencies inventory all “significant historic and cultural sites, structures, and objects under their jurisdiction which are over 50 years of age and which may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.” Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that projects that cause “…physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired” shall be found to have a significant impact on the environment.
For the purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project could impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource, which is defined as any site which: (A) Is historically or archeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and,
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 53 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
(B) Meets any of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Native American Consultation Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was signed by California Governor Jerry Brown on September 25, 2014, and requires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources, and to conduct consultation with federally and non-federally recognized Native American Tribes early in the environmental planning process. AB 52 requires that the lead agency must consult with California Native American Tribes who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, and who have requested such consultation in writing. As of the date of this Initial Study (December 2015), no tribes have requested such consultation with Merced County (Guerrero pers. comm. 2015).
The Recreation and Cultural Resources Element of the 2030 Merced County General Plan contains Policy RCR-2.10 regarding tribal consultation. The policy prescribes consultation regarding proposed development project and land use policy changes consistent with Planning and Zoning Law at Government Code Section 65351, and the OPR Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005). A letter was written, dated May 1, 2015, to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), West Sacramento requesting consultation in reference to the project area. No response was received from the NAHC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Each of the project variants would disrupt the majority of the project site. Project variant 1 shown in Figure 3 would leave an undeveloped right-of-way for the future extension of Ranchero Lane through much of the project site. While the development of project variant 1 would not directly affect this reserved right-of-way, it would permit the future development of Ranchero Lane, and, thus result in the indirect disruption of the right-of-way area. Therefore, the environmental effects on cultural resources of each of the project variants would be similar.
Questions (a)(b)(c)(d): Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) The entire project area has been previously graded, reducing the probability of finding paleontological sites, and is not within an area where paleontological resources would likely be exposed. The project area also lacks any unique geologic features, since the project area consists mainly of fallow fields.
The records search for the project site indicated that no known cultural resources are present within the project area. Therefore, the project variants would have no adverse effects on known cultural resources. Also, because the project area lacks any unique geologic features, the proposed project variants would not adversely affect these resources. While the CCIC report noted the proximity of natural wetland features, including the Merced River, it made no recommendations for further study (Napton 2015).
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 54 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
However, significant cultural remains can also exist below the plow zone in Merced County, and these resources may be unearthed during construction or continued cropping activities at the project site. Through Resolution 97-01, Merced County has imposed conditions relating to undiscovered cultural resources pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. The following mitigation measure would be required to minimize potential impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The project applicant and construction contractor shall implement a plan to address the discovery of unanticipated buried cultural or paleontological resources. If buried cultural resources such as chipped or ground stone, midden deposits, historic debris, building foundations, human bone, or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop responsible treatment measures in consultation with Merced County and other appropriate agencies.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project applicant and construction contractor shall implement a plan to address discovery of human remains. If remains of Native American origin are discovered during proposed project construction, it shall be necessary to comply with state laws concerning the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: • The County coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and • If the remains are of Native American origin:
√ The most likely descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC 5097.98; or √ The NAHC has been unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.
Because the records search conducted for the project site yielded no positive results, and because no resources have been discovered during previous disturbances of the project site, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed project variants would result in a less-than-significant impact to paleontological resources, unique geologic features, and human remains. No additional mitigation would be required.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 55 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or CEQA does not apply. death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ✓ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ✓ d) Be located expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial CEQA does not apply. risks to life or property?
e) 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? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Geology The proposed project site is located within the Great Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is composed primarily of alluvial deposits from erosion of the Sierra Nevada located to the east and from the Coastal Ranges located to the west. The topography of the project site is generally flat, with an approximate elevation of 163 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The proposed project site is not located within a mapped fault hazard zone, and there is no record or evidence of faulting on the project site (DOC 2015). The site is located in Seismic Damage Zone II, indicating a moderate severity level with moderate probably damage in event of severe seismic activity (Merced County 2013b).
Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides agricultural ratings for soils in the project area in its Merced County Soil Survey. The soils in the area of the project site as classified by the NRCS include Atwater loamy sand, deep over hardpan, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Greenfield sandy loam, deep over hardpan, poorly drained variant, 0 to 1 percent slopes; and San Joaquin loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. For more information on the soils found on the project site, refer to Table 3 in Section II, Agriculture and Forestry Services, above. (NRCS 2015)
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 56 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
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. The Greenfield sandy loam soil type, found on 3.2 acres of the project site, would be very limited in terms of shrink-swell potential (0.50), but this could be effectively managed through proper engineering and construction practices. (NRCS 2015)
Septic Systems As proposed by the applicant, wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by a phased onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) consisting of five treatment and disposal modules. As proposed, modules would be added as demand required within each of the three project phases. The newly engineered septic system would be required to meet County and state standards. Please refer to Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, for an evaluation of this issue.
The soils within the project site would present limitations related to the installation of an OWTS. For additional information on the suitability of on-site soils for septic systems, refer to Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Merced County regulates the effects of soils and geological constraints on urban development primarily through enforcement of the California Building Code (CBC), which requires the implementation of engineering solutions for constraints to urban development posed by slopes, soils, and geology.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The California Supreme Court has clarified CEQA practice to limit the evaluation of environmental effects only to the impact of a proposed project on the environment, and not the effects of the environment on a project1. Thus, adverse effects from existing environmental hazards on a proposed new use would not be assessed for CEQA purposes, and no environmental conclusions would be reached. No mitigation could be required. The exception to this general rule would be if the construction or operation of the proposed project modified a condition on the project site or affecting the project site in a way that caused new or increased environmental effects offsite, or if implementation of the project exacerbated an existing condition for offsite uses.
However, for many environmental hazards, local agencies such as Merced County impose requirements to avoid or reduce hazards. Similarly, local agencies have the ability to impose conditions of project approval to avoid or reduce hazardous conditions.
The following analysis is based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as used by Merced County. Because Appendix G has not been modified in response to the ruling of the California Supreme Court, the evaluation below follows the order of the questions posed by Appendix G. For traditionally evaluated impacts that are not now appropriate CEQA topics, the environmental conclusion has been replaced with the phrase “CEQA Not Applicable.” A discussion of the
1 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. 2 These measures include only those measures that could be accounted for in CalEEMod with the level of detail
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 57 April 2016 Environmental Analysis potentially hazardous condition follows, including recommended conditions of approval where appropriate.
Question (a.i) Faults: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) 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 (DOC 2015). Because no fault traces underlie the project site, no hazardous conditions would result from implementation of either project variant. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to fault hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Question (a.ii) Seismic Ground Shaking: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The State Division of Mines and Geology has published a map of maximum expectable earthquake intensities for California. The proposed SJV Christian School project is located within Zone II (Merced County 2013b). In the event an earthquake would occur within Zone II, it would be expected to result in damage of moderate severity. Merced County requires that all new construction comply with the seismic safety requirements of the CBC. Compliance with the CBC would reduce risks on the project site from seismic ground shaking to levels considered acceptable for the state and region. Therefore, no hazardous conditions related to groundshaking would occur with the implementation of either project variant. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to hazards related to seismic ground shaking, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Question (a.iii) Ground Failure/Liquefaction: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) While the County has not recognized any specific areas subject to liquefaction hazard, there is the potential for occurrence where unconsolidated sediments and a high water table coincide. Probable areas for liquefaction hazards include the county’s wetland areas and areas with high groundwater or near levees. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) groundwater level records indicate that groundwater levels at Well Station 373466N1205499W001 near the project site have varied from 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) in 1975 to 69.8 feet bgs in 2012 (DWR 2015). While the proposed project would not likely be exposed to the effects of liquefaction, building standards imposed by Merced County and compliance with CBC requirements would further reduce this potential hazardous condition. Also, the project area is not noted for unstable geologic formations susceptible to ground failure (Merced County 2013c), and the site is generally level. Given the existing topography and soil structure, and required compliance with seismic safety requirements according to the CBC, building failure or damage due to liquefaction or unstable geological features at this location are considered unlikely. Therefore, potential geologic hazards such as ground failure and liquefaction would not result in hazardous conditions for either project variant. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to hazards from ground failure or liquifacction, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Question (a.iv) Landslides: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The project site is generally flat and is not located near steep slopes with unstable soils that may be susceptible to landslides. Also, the greater project area is not noted for unstable geologic formations susceptible to landslides (Merced County 2013c). Therefore, neither of the two project variants of the proposed K- 12th grade school would be exposed to potential geologic hazards, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a landslide. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to hazards from ground failure or liquifaction, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 58 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question (b) Soil Erosion: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The project site has been previously cleared and graded. While implementation of the proposed project variants could result in temporary soil erosion and the loss of topsoil due to construction activities, the location where the proposed project variants would be constructed is generally level. Minimal modification to the site’s existing topography would be required. Also, the project site soils have “slight” erosion potential (NRCS 2015), meaning little or no erosion is likely. Because the proposed project variants would disturb more than one acre, the applicant would also be required to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the SWRCB for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities, which would require the implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would contain BMPs, which would reduce soil erosion impacts. For these reasons, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
For a discussion of potential impacts due to runoff, see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Question (c) Unstable Soils: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Soils present in the area of the proposed project variants have few building limitations, and these limitations would be minimized by project design (NRCS 2015). Further, the project site and area are not noted for unstable geologic formations susceptible to landslide or ground failure (Merced County 2012c). The project site has been previously graded, and topography within the project area is relatively level. Given the existing topography, and because the area of the proposed construction is not considered unstable or susceptible to ground failure, implementation of either of the proposed project variants would not result in soil instability.
Subsidence is the settling or sinking of parts of the earth’s surface layer. In some areas, subsidence can result from excessive extraction of groundwater. The project site is not located within a known area of subsidence (Merced County 2012c). The proposed project would not result in substantial increases in groundwater withdrawal because the project would be served by the Meadowbrook Water Company and the Merced Irrigation District. Potential effects from unstable or expansive soils would be further minimized following compliance with the Merced County and CBC building standards, including the submittal of a soils report. For these reasons, potential impacts on offsite properties from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or unstable soils induced by the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (d) Expansive Soils: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) Expansive soils are soils that expand when water is added, and shrink when they dry out. The project site soils have some building limitations due to moderate shrink-swell potential (NRCS 2015). Merced County building code requires a soils report for most non-residential structures within Merced County. Compliance with the CBC requirements would reduce risks on the project site from shrink-swell potential to levels considered acceptable for the state and region, and the proposed project variants would not be exposed to geologic hazards from expansive soils. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to hazards from expansive soils, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Question (e) Septic: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) For an evaluation of the wastewater management system proposed by the project, including the adequacy of onsite soils to support an OWTS, see Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, Questions (a)(b)(e), of this Initial Study.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 59 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ✓
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Global Warming is a public health and environmental concern around the world. As global concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases increase, global temperatures increase, weather extremes increase, and air pollution concentrations increase. Global warming and climate change has been observed to contribute to poor air quality, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, stronger storms, more intense and longer droughts, more frequent heat waves, increases in the number of wildfires and their intensity, and other threats to human health (IPCC 2013). With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record of global temperatures all have occurred since 2000, with 2014 ranking as the warmest year on record (NASA 2015). Hotter days facilitate the formation of ozone, increases in smog emissions, and increases in public health impacts (e.g., premature deaths, hospital admissions, asthma attacks and respiratory conditions, and acute bronchitis) (ALA California 2011). Averaged global combined land and ocean surface temperatures have risen by roughly 0.85ºC from 1880 to 2012 (IPCC 2013). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth’s surface is likely to increase by over 1.5ºC by the year 2100 relative to the period from 1850 to 1900 (IPCC 2013).
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions California carbon dioxide equivalent emissions were approximately 458.68 million metric tons in 2012 (ARB 2014a). While there has been an increase in GHG emissions from 2010 levels of 453.06 million metric tons, there has been an overall decrease from 2004 emissions of 492.86 million metric tons. Of GHG emissions from within California, over 36 percent is from transportation and over 20 percent is from electric power. Other sources of GHG emissions include commercial and residential (9.2 percent), agriculture (8.3 percent), industrial (19.4 percent), recycling and waste (1.9 percent), and other sources (4 percent) (ARB 2014a).
The Greenhouse Effect (Natural and Anthropogenic) The Earth naturally absorbs and reflects incoming solar radiation and emits longer wavelength terrestrial (thermal) radiation back into space. On average, the absorbed solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing terrestrial radiation emitted to space. A portion of this terrestrial radiation, though, is itself absorbed by gases in the atmosphere. The energy from this absorbed terrestrial radiation warms the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, creating what is known as the “natural greenhouse effect.” Without the natural heat-trapping properties of these atmospheric gases, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water (IPCC 2007). Although the Earth’s atmosphere consists mainly of oxygen and nitrogen, neither plays a significant role in this
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 60 April 2016 Environmental Analysis greenhouse effect because both are essentially transparent to terrestrial radiation. The greenhouse effect is primarily a function of the concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and other trace gases in the atmosphere that absorb the terrestrial radiation leaving the surface of the Earth (IPCC 2007). Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases can alter the balance of energy transfers between the atmosphere, space, land, and the oceans. Radiative forcing is a simple measure for both quantifying and ranking the many different influences on climate change; it provides a limited measure of climate change as it does not attempt to represent the overall climate response (IPCC 2007). Holding everything else constant, increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will likely contribute to an increase in global average temperature and related climate changes (EPA 2014).
Greenhouse Gases
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, emitted solely by human activities. There are also several gases that, although they do not have a direct radiative forcing effect, do influence the formation and destruction of ozone, which does have such a terrestrial radiation absorbing effect. These gases, referred to here as ozone precursors, include carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC). Aerosols (extremely small particles or liquid droplets emitted directly or produced as a result of atmospheric reactions) can also affect the absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere.
Carbon is stored in nature within the atmosphere, soil organic matter, ocean, marine sediments and sedimentary rocks, terrestrial plants, and fossil fuel deposits. Carbon is constantly changing form on the planet through the a number of processes referred to as the carbon cycle, which includes but is not limited to degradation and burning, photosynthesis and respiration, decay, and dissolution. When the carbon cycle transfers more carbon to the atmosphere this can lead to global warming. Over the last 300 years atmospheric levels of carbon have increased by more than 30 percent, of which approximately 65 percent is attributable to fossil fuel combustions and 35 percent is attributed to deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural use (Pidwirny 2006). Carbon stored in plants and rocks is referred to as being sequestered. Within the United States, forest sequestration of carbon offsets approximately 11 percent of the fossil fuel GHG emissions each year (USDA 2010).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The U. S. EPA is the federal agency responsible for implementing the CAA. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled on April 2, 2007 that CO2 is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. However, there are no federal regulations or policies regarding GHG emissions thresholds applicable to the proposed project at the time of this Initial Study.
The ARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California, and for implementing the CCAA. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce the state’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long-term. Because every nation emits GHGs,
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 61 April 2016 Environmental Analysis and therefore makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change, cooperation on a global scale will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions to a level that can help to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.
There are numerous laws that have been signed into effect in California in efforts to reduce GHG emissions. AB 1493 (signed in 2002) requires that the ARB develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by the ARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state.” To meet the requirements of AB 1493, in 2004 the ARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. In 2009, the ARB adopted amendments to the “Pavley” regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016.
Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra’s snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent of the 1990 level by 2050 (20 percent reduction).
In September 2006, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 established regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2011, the ARB adopted the cap- and-trade regulation. The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap-and-trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap.
The initial main strategies and roadmap for meeting the 1990 emission level reductions are outlined in a Scoping Plan approved in December 2008 and updated every five years (the Scoping Plan was updated in May 2014). The Scoping Plan includes regulations and alternative compliance mechanisms, such as monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms, such as a cap-and-trade program. The Climate Change Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 80 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, or approximately 16 percent, from the state’s projected 2020 emission level of 507 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario. The Climate Change Scoping Plan also includes a breakdown of the amount of GHG reductions the ARB recommends for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory. (ARB 2014b)
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the State Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. These guidelines were adopted in December 2009 and were made effective March 18, 2010. The amendments include an explicit requirement that EIRs analyze GHG emissions
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 62 April 2016 Environmental Analysis resulting from a project when the incremental contribution of those emissions may be cumulatively considerable.
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 2015, establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by former Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005 with Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order requires state agencies consider “full life-cycle cost accounting” when making future planning and investment decisions. To help state agencies incorporate climate change impacts into planning and investment decisions, the Executive Order requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to establish a technical, advisory group on the issue.
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code)(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) is a part of the California Building Standards Code that comprehensively regulates the planning, design, operation, and construction of newly constructed buildings throughout the state. Both mandatory and voluntary measures are included in the CALGreen Code. Mandatory measures for non-residential structures include standards for light pollution reduction, energy efficiency, and water conservation, among others.
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS On December 17, 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the policy “District Policy – Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency”. The guidance was developed to assist Lead Agencies, project applicants, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project specific GHG emissions on global climate change. However, the SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency from establishing its own methodology in determining the significance of project-related greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change impacts. Further, the State CEQA Guidelines specify that thresholds adopted by other agencies may be considered by lead agencies when determining project significance. As described more fully in Appendix A, this analysis uses a numeric threshold for land use projects of 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year for both construction and operation emissions. If emissions exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year, then a significant impact would result. The project proponent would be required to either mitigate below the 1,100 threshold or implement all feasible mitigation for a project. See Appendix A for a discussion of GHG emissions methodology and modeling calculations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Potential Differing Effects of the Two Project Variants Climate change impacts are directly assessed for Project Variant 2 only. Since the only difference between Project Variant 1 and 2 that could affect air emissions is that Variant 1 would not include two of proposed baseball/softball fields, construction and operational emissions would be less than those assessed for Variant 2. Because emissions for Variant 1 would be less than those evaluated and discussed in the impact analysis, the environmental conclusions reached for Variant 1 would be the same as those reached for Variant 2. No additional modeling or other revisions to the analysis is necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 63 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question (a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) Greenhouse gas emissions would be generated from the proposed school during construction and operation. Temporary GHG emissions would occur during construction activities, predominantly from heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust and worker commute trips. Operational GHG emissions would result from energy use associated with heating, cooling, and lighting the school facilities; emissions associated with landscaping and maintenance activities; and from mobile sources associated with student, faculty, and staff vehicle trips. Indirectly, project operations would also result in greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment, water conveyance to the project site, and solid waste disposal.
GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod.2013.2.2). CalEEMod provides default parameters based on land use inputs, or allows for the input of project-specific information, if available. Additional information specific to the school project was used to modify the CalEEMod inputs and refine GHG emissions resulting from the project (as included in Table 8 notes and Appendix A).
The estimated construction-related GHG emissions are summarized in Table 8 (see Appendix A for CalEEMod Model output).
Table 8 Summary of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source (metric tons CO2e/year) Unmitigated Mitigated Construction-Related 2017 579 579 Emissions 2018 73 73 Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas. While Phase 1 would be completed prior to the start of the 2017 school year, to calculate the worst-case scenario for annual construction emissions, this modeling analysis includes build-out of the school in one phase using CalEEMod default parameters. Source: Planning Partners 2016. See Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions used for calculations.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project are estimated to result in a maximum annual emissions of 573 metric tons of CO2e per year, which would not exceed the established construction threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of several small trees on the project site. Removal of trees, replanting of trees, and disturbance of soil can affect the amount of CO2 sequestered on the project site and result in the release stored CO2. In addition, the gasoline- powered equipment used to remove the trees would generate additional CO2 emissions through the burning of fossil fuels. The removal of on-site trees would initially (prior to replanting) reduce the rate of carbon sequestration on the project site. However, additional trees would be planted for the project site landscaping, and as part of mitigation included in this document; while the exact number of trees is currently unknown, there would be an overall increase in the number of trees. Planting replacement trees contributes negligible CO2 mitigation because they don’t begin to sequester significant carbon for at least 20 years.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 64 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
In order to evaluate the proposed project operations, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated for the 2005 BAU scenario, 2020 conditions (for comparison with the BAU scenario), and 2025 build-out. The estimated BAU emissions, 2020 operations, 2025 build-out, and mitigated 2025 operations GHG emissions are summarized in Table 9 (see Appendix A for CalEEMod Model output).
Table 9 Summary of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project
Business as Usual 2020 Project 2025 Build-out 2025 Mitigated
Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons CO2e/year) Area 0.012 0.010 0.02 0.02 Energy 147.0 122.2 375.8 271.6 Mobile 1,216.6 886.9 2,945.0 2,926.1 Waste 19.10 19.1 66.4 33.2 Water 5.52 4.5 15.7 12.3 Total GHG Emissions 1,388.2 1,032.7 3,402.9 3,243.2
Notes: BAU = Business as Usual; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas; numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: Planning Partners 2016. See Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions used for calculations.
Operation of the proposed project in 2020 (Phase 1 with 230 students) is estimated to result in
1,032.7 metric tons of CO2e annually without implementation of energy efficiency measures identified by the applicant (see Table 10). The BAU scenario would result in 1,388.2 metric tons of
CO2e annually. Therefore, Phase 1 GHG emissions would not exceed the significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e and would represent a 25.6 percent reduction from the BAU scenario. Operation of the proposed project at build-out in 2025 (800 students) is estimated to result in
3,402.9 metric tons of CO2e annually without implementation of energy efficiency measures identified by the applicant (see Table 9), which would exceed the identified threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. This would be a significant impact. As established in Appendix A, the project proponent would be required to either mitigate below the 1,100 threshold or implement all feasible mitigation for the proposed project. With implementation of low-emission or energy saving measures included as part of the project2 and mitigation measures outlined below, mitigated 2025 operational-related emissions would be 3,243.2 metric tons of CO2e annually, which would represent a reduction of 159.7 metric tons CO2e from unmitigated 2025 build-out emissions. The assumptions and methodology used to quantify emissions for project operations are included in the CalEEMod remarks in Appendix A. The following mitigation measures would be required to achieve a reduction of 159.7 metric tons
CO2e. For projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year such as the SJVCS, all reasonable, feasible mitigation measures would need to be implemented. For this analysis, reasonable and feasible were determined to be applicable measures included in the CAPCOA report
2 These measures include only those measures that could be accounted for in CalEEMod with the level of detail provided by the project applicant. See Appendix A for assumptions used for calculations.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 65 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
“Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures” (August 2010) and as included in the CalEEMod mitigation options, or incidentally required by regulation or Executive Order for certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as water use and solid waste generation. For example, Executive Orders B-29-15 and B-36-15 issued by the Governor require that water use in the state be reduced by 25 percent in aggregate from all sectors during the ongoing drought. This required reduction in water use would incidentally result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions since less water would be pumped, treated, and distributed. Mitigation Measure GHG-1: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from project operations, the project applicant for the proposed project, as well as all successors in interest, shall implement the following measures. Alternate measures may be used, as long as the same reduction of 159.7
metric tons CO2e is achieved. a. As proposed by the project applicant, the project would be built to exceed Title 24 efficiencies by at least 15 percent. A compliance report demonstrating the 15 percent reduction by project design shall be submitted to the County prior to issuance of building permits, as required by Title 24. This performance standard can be met with a combination of measures to reduce energy use for heating, cooling, water heating and ventilation. The project applicant must provide third-party verification of energy savings. Consistent with Merced County General Plan Policy AQ-1.1, trees planted along the south and west side of the buildings or the use of reflective materials to reduce the heat island effect can contribute to the overall reduction in energy use. b. The proposed project shall include the use of energy efficient interior exterior lighting fixtures. The project applicant shall achieve a 20 percent reduction compared to standard conditions. Scaled by lumens, the project applicant may take the following credit for efficiency: • 16% for metal halide post top lights • 35% for metal halide cobrahead or cutoff lights • 40% for high pressure sodium cutoff lights • A calculated percentage reduction for LED lights if supported by engineering data submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department for review and approval c. The applicant shall provide evidence that the project, as designed, would achieve a 20 percent reduction in energy use from lighting compared to standard conditions. d. The project applicant shall ensure that energy efficient appliances (Energy Star rated) are installed in the school. e. The project applicant shall prepare a Water Conservation Strategy that would result in 25 percent reduction in indoor and outdoor water use. Project plans shall include low-flow faucets, toilets, and showers. Drip or spray irrigation shall be required. (See Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.) The project applicant can combine a variety of water reduction measures to meet the 25 percent reduction. The project applicant shall provide evidence that the project design would result in a 25 percent reduction in water consumption compared to standard conditions. f. Existing state law requires 50 percent diversion for recycling from the waste stream. The project applicant shall institute a recycling and/or composting program to achieve a reduction of waste disposed by 50 percent. The project applicant shall provide detailed evidence supporting the amount of waste reduced or diverted as a result of the program. g. Implement a School Pool or a School Bus Program. The project applicant will create a ridesharing program for school children and demonstrate that 10 percent of students participate in the program. A SchoolPool helps match parents to transport students to private schools.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 66 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
As shown in Table 9, mitigation measures outlined above in conjunction with State regulations would reduce the project’s GHG emissions by 29.1 percent from the BAU Scenario. Therefore, in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance, the project would be considered consistent with the reductions required under AB 32, and the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Energy Efficiency: The school buildings would be required to meet the Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code. According to the project applicant, the proposed school project would include a full LED lighting package with controls system including daylight harvesting, occupancy sensors, and photocells to control exterior lighting. The applicant has also stated that the HVAC system would have an industry leading SEER efficiency rating, and that the building envelope would exceed California Title 24 minimum requirements. With implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 above, energy efficiency measures would exceed these project commitments, and the proposed SJV Christian School project operations would be considered energy efficient.
Question (b) Conflict with a GHG Reduction Plan: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) Merced County has not adopted a Climate Action Plan, nor any greenhouse gas reductions measures, other than enforcing the provisions of the Green Building Standards Code and the Title 24, Energy Code.
The 2030 Merced County General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions in the County. Two policies would apply to the proposed project:
Policy AQ-1.1: Energy Consumption Reduction. Encourage new residential, commercial, and industrial development to reduce air quality impacts from energy consumption.
Policy AQ-1.7: Heat Island Effect Reduction. Require tree canopy and reflective surface materials in order to reduce the heat island effect (i.e., increased temperatures due to heat radiation off paved surfaces and rooftops.) This includes:
a) Preserving agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, watersheds, groundwater recharge areas, and other open space that provide carbon sequestration benefits; b) Establishing a mitigation program for development of those types of open space that provide carbon sequestration benefits; c) Requiring like-kind replacement for, or impose mitigation fees on, land development that results in the loss of carbon sequestering open space; and d) Using mitigation funds generated to protect existing open space.
As included in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project would be required to exceed Title 24 efficiencies by at least 15 percent. In addition, the project applicant would need to show a 20 percent reduction in energy use from lighting compared to standard conditions. The measure includes the use of tree canopy along the south and west side of the buildings and reflective materials as options to reduce energy use, which would also reduce the heat island effect. Therefore, the project, with implementation of GHG-1, would not conflict with implementation of an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 67 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ✓
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ✓
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ✓
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, CEQA does not apply. would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two CEQA does not apply. miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) 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? CEQA does not apply.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ✓
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including CEQA does not apply. where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING No use or storage of hazardous materials would be expected from the proposed project beyond minor amounts of cleaning and landscaping chemicals, and in Phase 3, minor amounts of common agricultural and other chemicals associated with the proposed farm and chemistry education.
Environmental Hazards Database Review A database search of various environmental agency lists was conducted for the project site and the surrounding area, including the adjacent fill parcel, to identify potential hazardous contamination sites. Based on the database search, the project site is not listed as a hazardous waste site according to the EPA’s Envirofacts website database (EPA 2015c). Also, the project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 68 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
List (known as the Cortese List) (DTSC 2015), or the U.S. EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) (EPA 2015d). However, the DTSC did note two nearby hazardous contamination sites that are discussed further in this section under the heading “Adjacent Properties.”
Phase I Environmental Site Audit The project applicant and their consultants have prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) to evaluate the presence of hazardous materials on the project site. A Phase I ESA is designed to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the previous and current uses and ownership of the project site. Recognized environmental conditions are defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to any release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. (Krazan 2014)
A field review completed during preparation of the Phase I ESA found that: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 057-050-019, -020, -021. During the visual observations of these subject site parcels, no hazardous materials or hazardous waste were observed. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of underground storage tanks (UST) was noted within the areas observed. No standing water or major depressions were observed on these subject site parcels. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on these subject site parcels. No pole- or pad-mounted electrical transformers were observed on these subject site parcels. No high-voltage, tower-mounted electrical transmission lines were observed on or within 100 feet of these subject site parcels. (Krazan 2014)
APNs 057-015-002 and -018. During the visual observations of these parcels, no hazardous materials or hazardous waste were observed. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of USTs was noted within the areas observed. No standing water or major depressions were observed on these subject site parcels. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on these subject site parcels. No pole- or pad-mounted electrical transformers were observed on these subject site parcels. No high-voltage, tower-mounted electrical transmission lines were observed on or within 100 feet of these subject site parcels. (Krazan 2014)
APN 057-050-059. Observations from the perimeter of this 27.88-acre parcel (observations were made from the perimeter of this 27.88-acre parcel without access to the interior of the parcel) indicate that the majority of this parcel was fallow agricultural land at the time of the site reconnaissance. No obvious indication of hazardous materials or hazardous waste was observed in association with the agricultural land; however, a small pile of vehicle tires and several tree trunks/branches were observed in the northwestern portion of this parcel. No obvious indication of hazardous materials or hazardous waste was observed in association with the above-referenced structures/features located in the southwestern portion of this parcel. However, two plastic 55-gallon drums were observed beneath a swamp cooler associated with the mobile home, and a similar drum was observed in the barn. None of the three drums appeared to have a lid and the contents of the drums,
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 69 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
if any, is unknown. A small steel tank which may contain a compressed gas was observed in the barn, and a forklift was observed adjacent to the steel shipping container. Additionally, a tractor was observed on the north side of the barn and it is thus possible that fuel, maintenance materials and/or waste oil associated with farm equipment operation and maintenance are being stored on site. However, it was not possible to observe objects smaller than the tractor on the north side of the mobile home and barn from the closest vantage point, so the types of materials/features present in this portion of subject site APN 057-500-059 are unknown. Housekeeping conditions were generally observed to be good within the visible portions of the areas proximate to the mobile home and barn, although several potentially non- operational vehicles were observed adjacent to these structures. During the limited visual observations of this subject site parcel, no obvious hazardous materials or hazardous waste were observed. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of USTs was noted within the areas observed. No standing water was observed on this subject site parcel. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on this subject site parcel. No pole- or pad-mounted electrical transformers were observed on this subject site parcel. No high-voltage, tower-mounted electrical transmission lines were observed on or within 100 feet of this subject site parcel. (Krazan 2014)
Wells/Onsite Septic Systems. A water well may have been located in the northeastern portion of APN 057-050-020 many years ago. Also, it is possible that a water well(s) is located on subject site parcel 057-050-059 to which access was not provided. During preparation of the ESA, the Franklin County Water District (FCWD) was contacted regarding sewer service for the subject site. According to a representative of the FCWD, sewer service is not supplied to the 2738 Dan Ward Road address by the FCWD. The FCWD representative stated that their records indicate that the mobile home located in the southwestern portion of subject site parcel 057-500-059 is connected to an on-site septic system. The presence of the septic system is not anticipated to adversely impact the subject site due to its presumed use for domestic purposes only. (Krazan 2014)
Asbestos/Lead Based Paint. Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the existing barn has been located in the southwestern portion of subject site APN 057-050-059 since at least 1957, and the mobile home has been located on site since at least 1987. It is unknown if the on- site structures contain asbestos-containing materials or lead based paint. (Krazan 2014)
Agricultural Chemicals. Review of historical aerial photographs and interviews conducted with the owners of APNs 057-050-019, -020, and -021 and 057-015-002 and -018 indicate that the parcels were utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1946 to 2014. According to the property owners, no persistent pesticides/herbicides have been stored on site or applied to the crops grown on site since during the 25 to 65 years that they have been familiar with their respective portions of the subject sites. It is not known if environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides were historically applied to the crops grown on the subject site; however, generally, Krazan’s sampling and analysis of surface soils from properties with similar agricultural histories in the subject site vicinity has typically yielded non-detectable results or very low concentrations for analysis of environmentally persistent pesticides. Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site at concentrations that would require regulatory action appears to be low. (Krazan 2014)
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 70 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Adjacent Properties M&A Market, 2980 Beachwood Drive; 100 feet to the southeast of the project site. According to records on file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), leaks in a former fuel storage and delivery system located at this facility resulted in petroleum hydrocarbon impacts to subsurface soil and groundwater at the M&A Market property located approximately 100 feet to the southeast of the SJVCS project site. Cleanup of the contamination was initiated in January 1992, and the RWQCB granted a case closure and no further action status relative to the petroleum hydrocarbon release(s) at the M&A Market site in correspondence dated March 2, 2010. According to the Krazan report, based on the removal of the contaminant source, the extensive and reportedly effective remediation, the minimal groundwater impact reportedly remaining at closure, the regulatory agency case closure status, and the location of this property 100 feet distant and hydraulically cross- to downgradient of the proposed project site, there is no evidence to suggest that the former contamination at this site currently represent an environmental concern in connection with the proposed site of the SJVCS. (Krazan 2014)
Baltimore Air Coil Company, 3058 Beachwood Drive; 190 feet to the east of the project site. According to the records on file with the RWQCB, wood treatment and cooling tower manufacturing operations conducted by the Baltimore Aircoil Company (BAC) between the early- 1960s and 1991 have resulted in adverse impacts to soil and groundwater at the 40-acre 3058 Beachwood Drive property, located approximately 190 feet to the east of the subject site. RWQCB records indicate that BAC utilized chemicals in their manufacturing processes that impacted soil and groundwater beneath this property with chromium and arsenic constituents. Environmental investigation and cleanup of the BAC site was initiated in 1991 and continues to the present. The current condition of the plume of contamination is: 1) groundwater impacted with constituents of concern apparently originating from the BAC site have migrated at least 250 feet to the west of the BAC site; 2) groundwater impacted with hexavalent chromium and other COCs from the BAC site was reportedly present approximately 30 feet to the east of the subject site in 2011; and 3) the groundwater contamination plume appears to be located hydraulically upgradient of the proposed SJVCS site, coupled with the absence of any site-specific groundwater data for the SJVCS site, the condition of the subsurface of the southeastern portion of the project site is unknown. However, groundwater elevations in the project area range from 55 to 73 feet below the ground surface. (Krazan 2014)
Airport Safety There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project. Castle Airport, a public use airport operated by Merced County, is located approximately 2.3 miles north of the SJVCS project site.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Hazardous Materials Both federal and state laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) administers requirements to ensure worker safety. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970).
The Merced County Division of Environmental Health (DEH) is the lead agency for the enforcement of State Hazardous Waste Control laws and regulations. The DEH maintains standards
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 71 April 2016 Environmental Analysis and guidelines relating to the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials. Facilities that handle and store considerable amounts of hazardous materials (55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gas) are required to implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP would include an inventory of all hazardous materials handled at the facility, floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures. The DEH also maintains minimum design standards relating to the operation and maintenance of on-site septic systems.
Airport Safety The Merced County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for adopting an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for all public use airports within Merced County. Although the law has been amended numerous times since its original enactment, the fundamental purpose of ALUCs to promote land use compatibility around airports has remained unchanged. As expressed in the present statutes, this purpose is: “...to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”
The compatibility plans that ALUCs adopt are the basic tools that they use to achieve this purpose. The ultimate objective of ALUCs, though, is to ensure that land use actions taken by local agencies also adhere to this purpose. ALUCs pursue this objective by reviewing the general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, building regulations, and certain individual development actions of local agencies for consistency with the policies and criteria in the applicable compatibility plan.
The Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan) contains the individual Compatibility Plan for each of the five public-use airports in Merced County: Castle Airport, Gustine Municipal Airport, Los Banos Municipal Airport, Merced Regional Airport, and Turlock Municipal Airport. As adopted by the ALUC, the basic function of the Compatibility Plan is to promote compatibility between each airport and the land uses that surround them to the extent that these areas have not already been devoted to incompatible uses. The plan accomplishes this function through establishment of a set of compatibility criteria applicable to new development around the airport. The Compatibility Plan serves as a tool for use by the ALUC in fulfilling its duty to review airport and adjacent land use development proposals. Neither the Compatibility Plan nor the ALUC have authority over existing land uses or over operation of any airport. (ALUC 2012a)
The Compatibility Plan accomplishes these purposes by establishing an “Airport Influence Area” for each of the five public-use airports, and within each airport’s Influence Area, further establishing “Compatibility Zones.” Both Airport Influence Areas and Compatibility Zones are delineated in consideration of: 1. Noise. Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise. 2. Safety. Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground. 3. Airspace Protection. Places where height and certain other land use characteristics, particularly uses that attract birds, need to be restricted in order to protect the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the airport.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 72 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
4. Overflight. Locations where aircraft overflights can be intrusive and annoying to many people. (ALUC 2012a)
Based on these criteria, Compatibility Zones define the prohibited and permitted uses of land, maximum allowable density of persons, and maximum height of structures and vegetation. For Castle Airport, five Compatibility Zones are defined (A, B1, B2, C, D), ranging from extremely limited uses and comprehensive restrictions (Zone A) to relatively few restrictions (Zone D). (ALUC 2012a)
The proposed SJVCS site is located within the Airport Influence Area of Castle Airport approximately 12,200 feet (2.3 miles) southwest of Runway 31, and within three Compatibility Zones (Zones B2, C, and D) as shown on Figure 8. Basic compatibility criteria for Castle Airport are set forth in Table 2A of the Compatibility Plan. Table 10 summarizes the criteria applicable to the SJVCS project.
Table 10 Castle Airport Compatibility Zones Applicable to Proposed SJVCS Land Uses Land Use Category Compatibility Zone Criteria for Conditional Uses A B1 B2 C D Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities (capacity D: Allowed only if alternative site >1,000 people): spectator-oriented outdoor outside zone would not serve intended stadiums, amphitheaters, fairground, zoos function Group Recreation (limited spectator stands): B2, C: Avoid if intended for noise- athletic fields, water recreation facilities, sensitive uses; ensure intensity criteria picnic areas are met Small/Non-Group Recreation: golf courses, B1, B2, C: Avoid if intended for noise- tennis courts sensitive uses; ensure intensity criteria are met Children’s School: K-12, day care centers B2, C: No new sites (see Policy (>14 persons), school libraries 5.5.2(c)(2). B2: CNEL 50 dB max. interior noise level Indoor Large Assembly Facilities (capacity C: Ensure intensity criteria met 300 to 999 people): theaters (approx. 15 s.f./person) Indoor Recreation: gymnasiums (approx. 60 B2, C: Ensure intensity criteria met s.f./person) Land Use Acceptability Interpretation/Comments Normally Compatible Normal examples o the use are compatible with noise, safety, and airspace protection criteria. Conditional Use is compatible if indicated usage intensity, lot coverage, and other listed conditions are met. For the purposes of these criteria, “avoid” is intended as cautionary guidance, not a prohibition of the use Incompatible Use should not be permitted under any circumstances. Source: Merced County ALUC 2012, Planning Partners 2015
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 73 April 2016 ZONE B2
ZONE ZONE D C San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: Merced County Airport Land Use Commission 2012; Planning Partners 2016 Figure 8 Castle Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones in the Vicinity of the SJVCS Site Environmental Analysis
Policy 1.4.3(h) of the Compatibility Plan defines the development of a school site as a “major land use action” that is subject to review by the ALUC to determine the consistency of the proposed school with the policies of the Compatibility Plan (ALUC 2012a). On March 21, 2015, Merced County Planning staff presented to proposed SJVCS project to the ALUC for a compatibility determination. At that time, the ALUC found that the proposed SJVCS project was consistent with the provisions of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Since that action, the project applicants have obtained additional land for the school site, and have revised the site plan accordingly. This revised project as assessed in this Initial Study also has been reviewed by the ALUC, which found that revised SJVCS project also was consistent with the provisions of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (Saechao 2015)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The California Supreme Court has clarified CEQA practice to limit the evaluation of environmental effects only to the impact of the proposed project on the environment, and not the effects of the environment on the project3. Thus, adverse effects from existing environmental hazards on a proposed new use would not be assessed for CEQA purposes, and no environmental conclusions would be reached. No mitigation could be required. The exception to this general rule would be if the construction or operation of a proposed project modified a condition on the project site or affecting the project site in a way that caused new or increased environmental effects offsite, or if implementation of the project exacerbated an existing condition for offsite uses.
However, for many environmental hazards, local agencies such as Merced County impose requirements to avoid or reduce hazards. Similarly, local agencies have the ability to impose conditions of project approval to avoid or reduce hazardous conditions.
The following analysis is based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as used by Merced County. Because Appendix G has not been modified in response to the ruling of the California Supreme Court, the evaluation below follows the order of the questions posed by Appendix G. For traditionally evaluated impacts that are not now appropriate CEQA topics, the environmental conclusion has been replaced with the phrase “CEQA Not Applicable.” A discussion of the potentially hazardous condition follows, including recommended conditions of approval where appropriate.
Questions (a)(b) Hazardous Materials/Accident Conditions: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) During routine operations of either project variant, only minor amounts of cleaning, landscaping, and agricultural and other chemicals for educational purposes (Chemistry classes) would be handled or stored on the project site. As noted above, if activities at the proposed school result in the handling and/or storage of considerable amounts of hazardous materials (55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compressed gas), the SJVCSA would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Merced County Division of Environmental Health for approval, and then implement the approved HMBP. The HMBP must include the following: an inventory of all hazardous materials handled at the facility, floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures.
3 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 75 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Construction activities for either project variant would involve the use, storage, transport, and disposal of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. According to federal health and safety standards, applicable federal OSHA requirements would be implemented to ensure worker safety. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California OSHA regulations.
Compliance with these operational and construction requirements would reduce the risk of hazards related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. The risk of hazards to the public or to environmental conditions related to accident conditions would also be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Question (c) Hazardous Materials within One-Quarter Mile of School: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) The nearest existing school, Stefani Elementary School, is located approximately 0.14 miles south of the project site. However, as discussed in Question (a), during operations for either project variant, the proposed SJVCS project would use only minor amounts of cleaning, landscaping, and agricultural and other chemicals for educational purposes. The storage and use of all chemicals would be in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation beyond compliance with existing laws and regulations would be necessary.
Question (d) Hazardous Waste Site: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) As described above, the project site is not listed as a hazardous waste site according to the EPA’s Envirofacts website database (EPA 2015c). Also, the project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (known as the Cortese List) (DTSC 2015), or the U.S. EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) (EPA 2015d). However, the DTSC did note two nearby hazardous contamination sites that are discussed further in this section under the subheading “Adjacent Properties.”
The applicant and their consultant prepared a Phase 1 Environmental Site Audit for the proposed school site. This audit found several conditions that could result in potential hazards.
Existing Onsite Hazardous Materials Based on a field review of the entire project site, no hazardous materials or hazardous waste were observed. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of underground storage tanks (USTs) was noted within the areas observed. No standing water or major depressions were observed on these subject site parcels. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on these subject site parcels. No pole- or pad-mounted electrical transformers were observed on these subject site parcels. No high-voltage, tower-mounted electrical transmission lines were observed on or within 100 feet of these subject site parcels.
For one of the parcels, APN 057-050-059, two plastic 55-gallon drums were observed beneath a swamp cooler associated with the mobile home and a similar drum was observed in the barn. None of the three drums appeared to have a lid and the contents of the drums, if any, is unknown. A small steel tank which may contain a compressed gas was observed in the barn and a forklift was observed
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 76 April 2016 Environmental Analysis adjacent to the steel shipping container. Additionally, a tractor was observed on the north side of the barn and it is thus possible that fuel, maintenance materials and/or waste oil associated with farm equipment operation and maintenance have been or are being stored on site.
The drums and tank, or underground storage tank if present could contain hazardous materials, which if improperly transported and disposed, could result in the release of the materials to the environment. This would be a potential hazard. Implementation of following Recommended Condition of Approval would ensure that such materials were properly identified and handled prior to the initiation of construction and occupancy of the school.
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to purchase of APN 057-050-059, or prior to the initiation of any demolition or construction, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to complete a visual assessment of the area of the mobile home, barn, and other outbuildings on APN 057-050-059 to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials in any drums, canisters, or tanks present in the area, and the potential for hazardous materials to be in the soil in the area. To determine the presence or absence of an underground storage tank, the licensed professional or firm shall also complete a a limited geophysical survey in the southwestern portion of subject site parcel 057-050-059 to assess the presence or absence of subsurface metallic anomalies characteristic of underground storage tanks. Should any evidence of hazardous materials be identified, the licensed professional or firm shall consult with the Merced County Division of Environmental Health (DEH) and appropriate state or federal regulatory agencies to develop a plan to remediate the identified materials, and the plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of DEH or other appropriate agency prior to the initiation of construction on the affected area of the SJVCS school site.
Wells/Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems According to the Phase 1 ESA prepared for the applicant, a water well may have been located in the northeastern portion of APN 057-050-020 many years ago. Also, it is possible that a water well(s) is located on parcel 057-050-059 to which access was not provided. If not properly decommissioned, these wells could provide a pathway for groundwater contamination.
During preparation of the Phase 1 ESA, the Franklin County Water District (FCWD) was contacted regarding sewer service for the subject site. According to a representative of the FCWD, sewer service is not supplied to the 2738 Dan Ward Road address by the FCWD. The FCWD representative stated that their records indicate that the mobile home located in the southwestern portion of subject site parcel 057-050-059 is connected to an on-site septic system. Although the presence of the septic system is not anticipated to adversely impact the subject site due to its presumed use for domestic purposes only (Krazan 2014), the tank and septic system if not properly decommissioned could result in the discharge of partially treated wastewater and pose an engineering hazard.
The potential presence of non-commissioned water wells and abandoned septic tanks could result in hazardous conditions. Implementation of the Recommended Condition of Approval would result in any groundwater wells on the project site being decommissioned properly to avoid groundwater contamination, and in the proper draining and decommissioning of any onsite septic tanks.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 77 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to the initiation of construction within any portion of the SJVCS project site, the applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to investigate the presence of any groundwater wells or septic systems. Should any wells or septic systems be identified, the well or septic system shall be properly drained and/or decommissioned in accordance with the requirements of the Merced County Well Ordinance (Section 9.28.060F of the Merced County Code) and the requirements for septic system abandonment set forth in Merced County’s Minimum Design Standards – Operation and Maintenance Site Evaluation for On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems.
Asbestos/Lead Based Paint As noted in the Environmental Setting, based on their dates of construction several of the residences and buildings to be demolished could contain asbestos-containing materials such as siding, tiles, or insulation, and lead based paints. The planned demolition of these existing structures could result in the release of these substances to the environment, thereby creating an environmental hazard for construction personnel on the project site. Implementation of the following Recommended Condition of Approval would require that a survey be completed to determine the presence or absence of such materials, and, if found, that asbestos-containing materials or those containing lead based paints be abated and disposed of properly.
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to the initiation of the demolition of any structure within any portion of the SJVCS project site, the applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to complete a comprehensive asbestos and lead based paint survey of all buildings to be demolished or significant renovated to determine if asbestos- containing materials and and lead based paint are present. If such materials are identified and need to be disturbed, repaired, or removed, a licensed abatement contractor should be retained to properly remove and dispose of all materials containing asbestos or lead based paint. Additionally, the applicants shall comply with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 3050 and 4002.
Agricultural Chemicals As noted in the Environmental Setting, the project site historically has been used for agricultural purposes that may have included the use of agricultural chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, biocides, and herbicides. However, the Phase 1 ESA found that sampling and analysis of surface soils from properties with similar agricultural histories in the subject site vicinity have typically yielded non-detectable results or very low concentrations for analysis of environmentally persistent pesticides. Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site at concentrations that would require regulatory action appears to be low. Because there is a low likelihood of encountering persistent toxic agricultural chemicals in onsite soils, the risks to construction personnel, surrounding residents, and the future students and staff of the school would be similarly low.
Existing Environmental Hazards on Adjacent Properties Two sites in the vicinity of the project site have released hazardous materials to groundwater. One site, the M&A Market is located 100 feet southwest of the project site. Hydrocarbons orgininating from a leaking underground storage tank contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the Market. Remediation was initiated in January 1992, and the RWQCB granted a case closure and no further
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 78 April 2016 Environmental Analysis action status relative to the petroleum hydrocarbon release(s) at the M&A Market site in correspondence dated March 2, 2010. According to the Krazan report, based on the removal of the contaminant source, the extensive and reportedly effective remediation, the minimal groundwater impact reportedly remaining at closure, the regulatory agency case closure status, and the location of this property 100 feet distant and hydraulically cross- to downgradient of the proposed project site, there is no evidence to suggest that the former contamination at this site currently represent an environmental concern in connection with the site of the proposed SJVCS.
The other site is the Baltimore Air Coil Company (BAC) located 190 feet east of the project site. Former activities at this location resulted in the release of chromium and arsenic constituents. Environmental investigation and cleanup of the BAC site was initiated in 1991 and continues to the present. The current condition of the plume of contamination is: 1) groundwater impacted with constituents of concern apparently originating from the BAC site have migrated at least 250 feet to the west of the BAC site; 2) groundwater impacted with hexavalent chromium and other COCs from the BAC site was reportedly present approximately 30 feet to the east of the subject site in 2011; and 3) the groundwater contamination plume appears to be located hydraulically upgradient of the proposed SJVCS site, coupled with the absence of any site-specific groundwater data for the SJVCS site, the condition of the subsurface of the southeastern portion of the project site is unknown. Implementation of either of the proposed SJVCS project variants would not result in the use groundwater for any purpose, nor would construction of the project variants result in excavations, borings, or pile driving approaching the 55 to 73 foot depth of the contamination plume. As proposed, water for domestic purposes would be supplied from a community water system, and landscaping and agricultural activities would be served by surface water from an existing Merced Irrigation District canal. Thus, as proposed, construction and operation of the proposed SJVCS project would not be affected by subsurface contamination originating on adjacent properties. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects from existing contamination hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated. Questions (e)(f) Public/Private Airports: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the SJVCS project site. Castle Airport, a public use airport operated by Merced County, is located approximately 2.3 miles to the north of the project site. The project site is within the regulatory boundaries of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Castle Airport. As delineated by the Compatibility Plan, the project site is within the Airport Influence Area of Castle Airport, and within three Compatibility Zones (Zones B2, C, and D). The Airport Land Use Commission has evaluated the proposed SJVCS project and determined that, as proposed, the project is consistent with the requirements of the Compatibility Plan. No private airfields are located within two miles of the project area. Because no private airfields are located in the vicinity of the proposed project, and the project has been determined to be consistent with the standards of the Castle Airport Compatibility Plan, no at-risk populations at the proposed project site would be exposed to hazards due to aircraft overflight. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to aircraft hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated. Question (g) Interference with an Emergency Response Plan: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. For a discussion of this impact and the identification of mitigation measures, please refer to Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, Question (e) of this Initial Study.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 79 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question (h) Wildland Fire Hazards: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for Merced County indicates that the project site and surrounding area is located in a Non-Wildland / Non-Urban Severity Zone (Merced County 2013d). The project site and vicinity also are designated as a Local Responsibility Area – Unincorporated, an area not considered a fire risk (CALFIRE 2007). Thus, no wildland fire hazard exists in the project area, and no students or staff would be exposed to the risk of wildland fire. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to wildland fire hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ✓
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ✓
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ✓ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ✓
e) 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? ✓ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ✓ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance rate map or other hazard delineation map? CEQA does not apply. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ✓
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, CEQA does not apply. injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? CEQA does not apply.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 80 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is currently fallow, although irrigated pasture and row crops have been grown on the site in the past. Other than irrigation ditches adjacent to and within fields, and an existing depression in the northwestern corner of the site, no engineered stormwater facilities are located on the project site. All drainage is by sheet flow internally and into surrounding areas. Much of the project site and vicinity are classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as lying within Flood Hazard Zone X, Other Flood Areas. Areas so designated could be exposed to a 0.2% annual chance flood, or a 1% annual chance flood with an average depth of less than 1 foot or with a drainage area of less than 1 square mile, or are protected by levees from a 1% annual flood. A small area on the western portion of the site is classified as Zone X, Other Areas. Within this designation, areas have been determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance flood plain.4 (FEMA 2015)
No floodways are identified in the project area. There are no watercourses or wetlands located on the project site. The nearest riparian features are located within the channels of Black Rascal Creek and Bear Creek, located approximately 1.0 and 1.3 miles south of the project site respectively; freshwater emergent wetlands are present approximately two miles to the east (USFWS 2015). No water bodies are located on the site, nor is the site located in an area of important groundwater recharge.
Agricultural uses on the project site are served by surface water supplied by an adjacent Merced Irrigation District (MID) canal. Existing residences on the project site are provided potable water by a community water system operated by the Meadowbrook Water Company. The ultimate source of this water is groundwater. The SJVCS project is proposed to be served by several new individual septic systems. (For an assessment of the project’s effects on utility systems for water and wastewater, see Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study.)
The project site is located in the Merced Groundwater Basin, which is one of the four smaller basins in Merced County that comprise the larger San Joaquin River drainage basin and the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (groundwater system) (Merced County 2013e). Groundwater levels within the project region range from 20 to 50 feet below ground surface (Merced County 2013f). According to the California Department of Water Resources well records for the project vicinity, groundwater has decreased from approximately 25 feet to 72 feet below the ground surface during the period from 1975 to 2012 (DWR 2015). Groundwater within the project area has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as having a low to medium sensitivity to contamination (Merced County 2013g).
REGULATORY SETTING In 2013, the State of California approved a General Permit for Waste Discharge requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000004. This MS4 permit applies to the majority of urbanized areas within Merced County east of the San Joaquin River, including the proposed SJVCS project site. The provisions of the MS 4 permit have been incorporated into the Merced County Code, Chapter 9.53, Regulation of Stormwater.
4 A 0.2% annual chance flood was formerly described as a 500-year flood. Similarly a 1% change flood was described as a 100-year flood. The labeling was changed to better communicate the potential for a flood to occur in any given year or in successive years.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 81 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Merced County implements the National Flood Insurance Program through Merced County Code Chapter 18.34, Special Flood Hazard Areas. This Chapter regulates the siting and design of structures within Special Flood Hazard Areas. As set forth in the Code (18.34.020), the site of the proposed SJVCS campus is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The California Supreme Court has clarified CEQA practice to limit the evaluation of environmental effects only to the impact of the proposed project on the environment, and not the effects of the environment on the project5. Thus, adverse effects from existing environmental hazards on a proposed new use would not be assessed for CEQA purposes, and no environmental conclusions would be reached. No mitigation could be required. The exception to this general rule would be if the construction or operation of a proposed project modified a condition on the project site or affecting the project site in a way that caused new or increased environmental effects offsite, or if implementation of the project exacerbated an existing condition for offsite uses.
However, for many environmental hazards, local agencies such as Merced County impose requirements to avoid or reduce hazards. Similarly, local agencies have the ability to impose conditions of project approval to avoid or reduce hazardous conditions.
The following analysis is based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as used by Merced County. Because Appendix G has not been modified in response to the ruling of the California Supreme Court, the evaluation below follows the order of the questions posed by Appendix G. For traditionally evaluated impacts that are not now appropriate CEQA topics, the environmental conclusion has been replaced with the phrase “CEQA Not Applicable.” A discussion of the potentially hazardous condition follows, including recommended conditions of approval where appropriate.
Questions (a)(f) Water Quality: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) Surface and groundwater quality could be adversely affected during both the construction and operational phases of the SJVCS school project. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, the proposed project would not be expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade water quality during construction or operation.
Construction The majority of the project site has been previously graded and leveled, and no major grading or earth-moving activities would occur. However, because the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, the applicant would be required to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities, which would require the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce soil erosion and protect stormwater runoff. To ensure implementation of stormwater requirements and to avoid siltation effects, the following mitigation measure would be required.
5 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 82 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The applicant shall submit permit registration documents for the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ to the SWRCB, and comply with all requirements of the permit. The annual fees are based on total disturbed area of the construction project in acres. A Legally Responsible Person (LRP) shall electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRD) prior to building permit issuance in the Stormwater Multi- Application Report Tracking System. PRDs consist of the Notice of Intent, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the SWPPP, a signed certification statement by the LRP, and the first annual fee. All requirements of the site specific SWPPP shall be included in construction documents for the project, and implemented for the duration of construction, including post-construction stabilization.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the proposed project would not be expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. Compliance with applicable requirements would minimize project impacts to water quality. A less-than- significant impact would result, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Operations During operation of the proposed project, the primary uses of water would be for domestic purposes, landscape and sports field irrigation, and irrigation of the proposed agricultural education farm in Phase 3. Excess irrigation water would be returned to the proposed irrigation pond to be developed in Phase 1 (see Figure 3). Because the irrigation system would be developed to conserve water, and excess irrigation water would be returned to the irrigation pond, little to no runoff would be expected from irrigation uses. A less-than-significant impact would result, and no mitigation would be required.
For a discussion of stormwater generation and management during project operations, see Question (e), below.
For domestic purposes, wastewater is proposed to be disposed of using several onsite wastewater treatment systems to be developed in phases as demand requires. For an evaluation of the proposed onsite septic systems, please refer to Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, Questions (a), (b), and (e).
Question (b) Groundwater Supply: Less-than-significant Impact. As proposed, the SJVCS would not use groundwater for any purposes. Although groundwater levels within the project area are declining, as in many areas of the San Joaquin Valley, implementation of the proposed project would not directly contribute to diminishing groundwater levels. While the proposed project would result in the addition of new impervious surfaces to the project site that could affect groundwater recharge, the proposed project area is not identified as important to groundwater recharge. Because the proposed project would not rely on groundwater for domestic water and irrigation purposes, and the site is not an important area of groundwater recharge, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge to an extent that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 83 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Questions (c)(d) Drainage Pattern: Less-than-significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat, and has been previously graded and leveled. Implementation of the project is not expected to involve substantial additional grading or earth-moving activities. No natural surface waterways exist on or adjacent to the project site, and none would be altered by the proposed project. The construction of the proposed SJVCS would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. A less-than- significant impact would result, and no mitigation would be required.
Question (e) Stormwater Runoff: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is comprised of fallow agricultural fields that provide a pervious surface. Construction of the proposed project would convert 51.75 acres of fallow fields to the school campus, parking areas, internal roadways, and sports facilities. Therefore, construction of the proposed school would result in an increase in impervious areas, and a concurrent increase in stormwater runoff.
As proposed, with project implementation, all stormwater would be collected in a network of storm drains and discharged into a detention basin in the northwest corner of the project site. The existing and proposed capacities of this basin are unknown, as are any stormwater treatment facilities.
In 2013, the State of California approved a General Permit for Waste Discharge requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000004. This obligates the County of Merced to review and potentially regulate new private development projects. The proposed SJVCS campus is located within the County MS4 (Stormwater Management) area and classified as a “Regulated Project” in the MS4 Permit. Regulated projects are required to be designed and constructed to implement source control measures and Low-Impact Development (LID) standards in order to effectively reduce runoff and pollutants associated with runoff.
These MS4 requirements have been incorporated into Chapter 9.53 of the Merced County Code, which requires development projects to incorporate best management practices in their design to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff as may be appropriate to minimize the generation, transport and discharge of pollutants. The site plan submitted to support this application does not indicate in detail the type of storm drainage system to be constructed. Because stormwater management facilities have not been designed beyond the location of a proposed detention basin and the stormwater collection piping network, the project’s conformance with County stormwater quantity and quality requirements is unknown. The discharge of excessive or contaminated stormwater could adversely affect surrounding developed uses and the natural environment. This would be a significant impact and mitigation would be necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would assure that all state and local requirements to meet runoff volume and stormwater quality limitations would be met. No residual significant impact would remain, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the initiation of construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project, the applicant shall develop an engineered stormwater drainage system to meet the collection, capacity, and quality requirements, and Low Impact Development requirements and Best Management Practices set forth in Merced County regulations (Merced County Code §9.53, Regulation of Stormwater). The Plan shall be submitted to Merced County for review and approval, and facilities identified in the approved plan will be constructed as required to serve each of the three project phases.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 84 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Questions (g)(i) Place Housing, Other Structures or People in a Floodplain: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides information on flood hazards for communities based on its Flood Insurance Rate Maps. According to FEMA, much of the project site and vicinity are classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as lying within Flood Hazard Zone X, Other Flood Areas. Areas so designated could be exposed to a 0.2% annual chance flood, or a 1% annual chance flood with an average depth of less than 1 foot or with a drainage area of less than 1 square mile, or be protected by levees from a 1% annual flood. A small area on the western portion of the site is classified as Zone X, Other Area. Within this designation, areas have been determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance flood plain. No floodways are identified in the project area. As defined by the Merced County Code, Section 18.34.020, the site of the proposed SJVCS campus is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area.
Although flooding is possible on the project site, because the proposed project would not place housing in an area subject to flood hazards or place developed uses within a floodway, development of the SJV Christian School project would not place persons or structures at risk from flood hazards. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to flood hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazards be exacerbated.
Question (h) Impede or Redirect Flood Flows: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) As noted above, no floodways are located in the project area, and the project site is not within a Special Flood Hazards Area as defined by the Merced County Code, Section 18.34.020. As proposed, each of the project variants would provide an engineering stormwater collection and retention system.
Although a number of structures would be constructed on the site under each of the project variants, no structure would be placed within a floodway, and no flood flows would be redirected or impeded. Additionally, the onsite stormwater system would be designed so that drainage from the project area would be retained on site. Thus, implementation of either of the proposed project variants would not impede or redirect flood flows. No significant impact would result, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (j) Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The proposed project site is located approximately 85 miles from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 162 feet above MSL and is distant from any large lakes. Mudslides and other forms of mass wasting occur on steep slopes in areas that contain susceptible soils or geology, typically as a result of an earthquake or high rainfall event. The project site is located on relatively flat ground. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to hazards related to a seiche, tsunami, or mudslides. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to these hazards, nor would any existing offsite hazardous conditions be exacerbated.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 85 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ✓ b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ✓
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed SJV Christian School project is located in an area transitioning from agricultural and rural residential land uses to more intensely developed urban land uses. The majority of project site is designated as Rural Residential Center in the 2030 Merced County General Plan. The applicant owns an adjacent parcel, APN 057-050-019; that parcel is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan. However, there are no uses proposed for that parcel, and it is not evaluated as part of the proposed project. The Merced Code Zoning Code applies a designation of Agricultural Residential within the Franklin-Beachwood Rural Residential Center to the proposed project site.
The existing land uses and facilities immediately surrounding the project site include single-family residences and rural residential uses to the south and west; and the raised tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, Santa Fe Drive, and agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses to the north and east.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Question (a) Physically Divide a Community: No Impact. (Both project variants) Both of the proposed project variants would involve the construction of a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade private school. The project vicinity includes single-family and rural residences; agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses; and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. A residential neighborhood extends to the south of the site, but the remainder of the surrounding area features the various uses listed above. Because a school is a community-serving use, and the proposed SJVCS project is being built on the edge of the existing residential communities to the south and west, the proposed project would not divide an established community. No adverse effects would result, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Question (b) Land Use Plan Conflict: Less-than-significant Impact. . (Both project variants) Both of the proposed project variants involve a site that is designated Rural Residential Center in the General Plan and zoned Agricultural Residential within the Franklin-Beachwood Rural Residential Center in the Zoning Code. While the proposed project variants would require a Conditional Use Permit, the construction and operation of a school facility would be consistent with both the Zoning Code and the 2030 Merced County General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project variants would
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 86 April 2016 Environmental Analysis not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Question (c) Habitat Conservation Plan: No Impact. (Both project variants) The project site is not located in an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan; therefore, no conflict with any local conservation program would occur. No significant impact would result, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state? ✓
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Mineral resources within Merced County consist of aggregate deposits located along the Merced River and adjacent existing and historic watercourses. According to the 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Figure 8-10, the project site is not located in an area of sand and gravel resources (Merced County 2013h).
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Questions (a)(b) Loss of Known or Locally-Important Mineral Resources: No Impact. (Both project variants) No important mineral deposits, Mineral Resource Zones, or existing or previous mines are located in the project area or on the project site. Because none of these resources and resource protection zones are present on the project site, no adverse effects would result from the implementation of either project variant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 87 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XII. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) 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? ✓
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ✓
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ✓
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ✓
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would CEQA does not apply. the project expose people residing or working in the project areas to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the CEQA does not apply. project area to excessive noise levels?
The following information summarizes the information and analysis contained in the Environmental Noise Analysis, San Joaquin Valley Christian School, Merced County, California prepared on December 2, 2015 by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC), attached to this Initial Study as Appendix C. The report addresses the noise impacts associated with development of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School, a proposed private school in an unincorporated area of Merced County, California.
To fully understand the noise analysis summarized in the following evaluation, it is necessary to have some sense of acoustical fundamentals and terminology. These characteristics are briefly touched upon here; however, Appendix C provides a much fuller explanation of the concepts.
Noise is simply described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough, they can be heard and are called sound. Discussing sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. (Bollard 2015)
To better relate overall sound levels and loudness to human perception, weighting methods were developed. There is a strong correlation between the way humans perceive sound and A-weighted sound levels. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment for community exposures. All sound levels expressed in this section are A-weighted sound levels, unless noted otherwise.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 88 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), over a given time period (usually one hour).
The perceived loudness of sounds and corresponding reactions to noise are dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level, duration of intrusive sound, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence, and frequency content. Within the usual range of environmental noise levels, the perception of loudness is relatively predictable. Table 1 of Appendix C shows examples of noise levels for several common noise sources and environments.
It is commonly understood that sound decreases with distance. But the propagation of sound is dependent on considerably more variables than distance alone. Those variables include the type of noise source (point, moving point, or line sources), the directionality of the noise source, the frequency content of the source (low frequency sound is absorbed in the atmosphere at a slower rate than high-frequency sound and therefore “carries” farther), atmospheric conditions (wind, temperature, humidity, gradients), ground type (dirt, grass fields, concrete, etc.), shielding (structures, noise barriers, topography), and vegetation. For this project, proposed residential receptors are located within fairly close proximity to the major noise sources. At short distances between the source and receptor, the effects of the atmosphere on sound propagation are diminished.
An increase in noise from similar sources of 5 dB or more would be noticeable where the ambient level is less than 60 dB. Where the ambient level is between 60 and 65 dB, an increase in noise of 3 dB or more would be noticeable, and an increase of 1.5 dB or more would be noticeable where the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. The rationale for the criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The existing noise environment within the overall project area varies by location and is defined by a combination of noise sources. The most pervasive noise source affecting the project area is surface traffic on Santa Fe Drive, Dan Ward Drive and other local and distant roadways. In addition, the project area is intermittently affected by railroad noise during passages of trains on the adjacent BNSF tracks. The project site is located over 2 miles away from the nearest airport, Merced County Castle Airport. Because of this distance, and the fact that the project is not located within any flight path, evaluation of aircraft noise impacts with Merced County Castle Airport is not warranted for this project.
To describe noise levels because of traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model was used. The FHWA model is based upon noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. Based on the results of the FHWA model, Table 11 shows the predicted existing traffic noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerlines, as well as the distances to the unshielded Ldn contours.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 89 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Table 11 Existing (Baseline) Traffic Noise Levels @ 50 feet and Distances to Traffic Noise Contours
L @ 50 Distance to Ldn Contour (feet) Segment Roadway Segment Description dn feet, (dB) 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 1 Santa Fe Dr West of Franklin Rd 74 94 203 437 2 Santa Fe Dr East of Belcher to Beachwood Dr 73 77 166 359 3 Santa Fe Dr East of Beachwood Dr 73 85 183 394 4 Beachwood Dr South of Santa Fe Dr 62 15 33 71 5 Dan Ward Rd East of Franklin Rd 58 8 16 35 6 Dan Ward Rd West of Beachwood Dr 57 7 15 33 Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2015.
To quantify the existing ambient noise environment, long-term (continuous) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at three locations within or adjacent to the proposed project area on September 10, 2015. The results of the long-term ambient noise measurement survey are summarized in Table 12. The Table 12 data indicate that existing noise levels within the project area vary, depending on location of the noise monitoring site relative to nearby noise sources. Inspection of the data showed that the monitoring location nearest Santa Fe Drive recorded the highest noise levels during the noise monitoring periods to the passages of freight and passenger trains on the adjacent BNSF tracks.
Table 12 Long-term Ambient Noise Level Monitoring Results Summary
1 Site Measured Noise Levels, dBA2 (Ldn) Notes/Source 1 81 Santa Fe Drive dominant source 2 67 Dan Ward Drive dominant source 3 65 Residential neighborhood dominant source Notes: 1 Noise monitoring locations illustrated on Appendix C Figure 1. 2 Noise level descriptor (Ldn) defined in Appendix C. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2015.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than other uses. Sensitive land uses can include residences, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and some public facilities, such as libraries. Single-family residences are the only sensitive use in the vicinity of the proposed school project. The closest off-site single-family residences are located immediately to the project site’s southern and western boundaries.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 90 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Merced County General Plan The Merced County 2030 General Plan Noise Element provides a basis for local policies to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of Merced County from excessive noise exposure (Merced County 2013). The fundamental goals of the Noise Element are as follows: • All citizens of the County free from the harmful effects of excessive noise. • Noise generating land uses and facilities important to the economic health of the County are not adversely affected by incompatible land uses.
To achieve these goals, the Noise Element contains specific policies and establishes noise level limits for both transportation and non-transportation noise sources. The following County noise level standards and policies would be applicable to this project.
Merced County General Plan Table HS‐1, shown below, provides the noise level standards for noise‐sensitive areas affected by transportation noise sources (traffic, railroad, and aircraft). Table HS‐2 shows the interior and exterior noise level standards for noise‐sensitive areas affected by non‐ transportation noise sources in the County. For specific General Plan Noise Element policies that apply to the proposed project, please refer to Appendix C of this Initial Study.
Merced County Noise Ordinance The County also enforces its Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.60, Noise Control) in the County Code. This ordinance contains noise level standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Specifically, the County Code prohibits a noise source from exceeding the background sound level by at least 10 dBA during daytime hours (seven a.m. to ten p.m.) and by at least 5 dBA during nighttime hours (ten p.m to seven a.m.). (Chapter 10.60.030). The County Code (Chapter 10.50.040A.2) prohibits anyone using or operating any loudspeaker, public address system, or similar device between ten p.m. and eight a.m. the following day, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential real property line.
According to County Code (Chapter 10.60.040), construction activities that include the operation of any tools or equipment used during construction, drilling, earth moving activities, excavating, or demolition are prohibited from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day on weekdays. They are also prohibited at any hour during weekend days or legal holidays, except for emergency work.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The California Supreme Court has clarified CEQA practice to limit the evaluation of environmental effects only to the impact of the proposed project on the environment, and not the effects of the environment on the project6. Thus, adverse effects from existing environmental hazards on a proposed new use would not be assessed for CEQA purposes, and no environmental conclusions would be reached. No mitigation could be required. The exception to this general rule would be if the construction or operation of a proposed project modified a condition on the project site or affecting the project site in a way that caused new or increased environmental effects offsite, or if implementation of the project exacerbated an existing condition for offsite uses.
6 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 91 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
However, for many environmental hazards, local agencies such as Merced County impose requirements to avoid or reduce hazards. Similarly, local agencies have the ability to impose conditions of project approval to avoid or reduce hazardous conditions.
The following analysis is based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as used by Merced County. Because Appendix G has not been modified in response to the ruling of the California Supreme Court, the evaluation below follows the order of the questions posed by Appendix G. For traditionally evaluated impacts that are not now appropriate CEQA topics, the environmental conclusion has been replaced with the phrase “CEQA Not Applicable.” A discussion of the potentially hazardous condition follows, including recommended conditions of approval where appropriate.
The potential noise impacts of the SJVCS project on surrounding residents can be categorized as those resulting from construction and those from operational activities. Construction noise would have a short-term effect; operational noise would continue throughout the lifetime of the project. Construction associated with the development of the proposed project would increase noise levels temporarily during construction. Operational noise associated with the school would tend to occur primarily during weekdays when school is in session, from September through May, although special camps or sports related activities could be scheduled during summer months. Additionally, sporting events could be conducted on weekends, primarily on Saturdays during and after the school year.
For this project, noise impacts both due to and upon the proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School development are assessed for both variants, although only noise generated by the construction and operation of the school is evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Noise impacts due to (resulting from), the proposed project would occur if project-generated traffic causes a substantial increase in traffic noise levels at existing, off-site, noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate project vicinity, or if noise generated by on-site activities exceeded the Merced County General Plan noise standards at neighboring residential uses. For increases in ambient noise levels, the following criteria were used to determine the significance of any increase: 1. Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and 2. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and 3. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant.
For transportation noise affecting existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses within the project site, the noise standards of Table HS-1 are applied.
For non-transportation noise sources affecting existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses within the project site, the noise standards of Table HS-2 are applied.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 92 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Questions (a)(c)(d) Increases in Noise that Exceed Noise Standards/Permanent Ambient Noise Increase/Temporary Ambient Noise Increase: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants)
Construction Noise Construction of the proposed school would temporarily increase noise levels in the project vicinity during the construction period. The initial phase of construction is expected to begin in summer 2016 following project approval. Construction activities, including excavation, grading, building construction, and paving, would be considered an intermittent noise impact throughout the construction period of the project. Although construction activities would likely occur only during daytime hours, construction noise could still be considered disruptive to local residents. The County’s Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction activity outside this time period is prohibited (Chapter 10.60.040). These hours are so defined because they include a period of time where noise sensitivity is at its lowest. Therefore, because the construction activity associated with the proposed project would occur during the day and would be consistent with the County’s Noise Ordinance, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Operational Noise Off-Site Noise Impacts due to the San Joaquin Valley Christian School To assess offsite traffic noise impacts due to the project, existing and future traffic noise levels were predicted for the local area roadways, both with and without traffic generated by the proposed project. Studied roadways included three locations on Santa Fe Drive, one location on Beachwood Drive, and two locations on Dan Ward Road. The project and no-project noise levels were compared and the noise level increases resulting from the project were assessed relative to the significance criteria cited above.
The FHWA Model was used to predict existing and existing plus project traffic noise levels, and the project-related noise level increases for existing and future (cumulative) traffic noise exposure along the project area roadways both with and without the proposed project, including the traffic noise levels due to the project.
Development within the project area would cause increases in existing and future traffic noise levels on the local roadway network. Of the six roadway segments evaluated, it was determined that the project-related traffic noise level increase relative to existing traffic noise levels without the project would range from having no change to +1 dB. These increases are not considered to be substantial on any of the roadways affected by project-generated traffic relative to the significance criteria cited above. As a result, off-site traffic noise impacts resulting from project-generated traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be needed to address project-generated traffic noise.
Playing Field Noise Impacts on Nearby Existing Residences As set forth on Table HS-2 cited above, Merced County requires that non-transportation noise levels impacting residential land uses not exceed 55 dB L50 and 75 dB Lmax at outdoor activity areas of residential land uses during daytime hours, and 55 dB L50 and 75 dB Lmax during nighttime hours.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 93 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
To predict future noise exposure at the nearest residential land uses to the south of the proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School project area, BAC file data for school playing fields and outdoor activities were used. Those data were projected from the effective noise center of the various playing fields to the neighboring residential land uses using accepted sound propagation algorithms (6 dB decrease per doubling of distance from the noise source). The results of the outdoor playing field noise assessment are shown in Table 13.
Table 13 Predicted Playing Field Noise Levels at Nearby Residences Predicted Noise Levels at Distance from Center Noise Sensitive Location Nearest Residences of Play Area, (feet) L50 Lmax Merced County Daytime Noise Standard (Table HS-2) 55 75 Merced County Nighttime Noise Standard (Table HS-2) 50 70 Reference Playing Field Sound Pressure Levels 100 55 75 Youth Soccer Field 240 47 67 JV Softball Field 200 49 69 JV Baseball Field 180 50 70 Pool Area 230 48 68 Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2015.
The Table 13 data indicates that predicted noise levels from future playing fields is predicted to satisfy the County’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standard at the nearest residences. As a result, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary for this aspect of the proposed project. Even though the impact of noise from sports fields has been found to be less than significant, the Noise Ordinance standards regarding loudspeakers set forth in Chapter 10.50.040A.2 that prohibit anyone using or operating any loudspeaker, public address system, or similar device between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential real property line, would continue to apply to the proposed SJVCS project.
On-Site Circulation and Parking Lot Noise Impacts on Existing Residences To predict future noise exposure from on-site circulation and parking lot activities at the nearest residential land uses, BAC file data collected at parking lots were used. This analysis indicates that noise generated by onsite circulation and parking lot movements could cause an exceedance of the Merced County General Plan noise standards at some neighboring residences to the south and west of the project site. Specifically, median noise levels of 60-63 dB L50 are predicted at the nearest residences during peak hours of parking lot activity. This would be a significant impact, and mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure s would protect this residence from heightened noise levels, and resulting attenuated noise levels would meet County standards. No residual impact would result, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 94 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure NSE-1: To reduce noise generated by parking lot activities and on-site circulation to a comply with applicable Merced County General Plan noise standards, the construction of a solid noise barrier at the location shown on Figure 9 would be required. The analysis of the barrier’s effectiveness concludes that a 6-foot tall masonry or other similar material barrier at that location would be adequate to reduce on-site circulation noise levels to
below the County’s 55 dB L50 noise level standard. This barrier may be installed in two segments: 1) Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 of the SJVCS project as depicted on Figure 3 of this Initial Study, the first phase of the barrier shall be constructed as shown on Figure 9 within the area delineated as Phases 1 and 2 on Figure 3; and, 2) Prior to occupancy of Phase 3, if Ranchero Lane has not been extended through the project site, the barrier shall be completed as depicted on Figure 9.
Exposure of Students and Staff to Noise that Exceeds Standards/Permanent Ambient Noise Increase/Temporary Ambient Noise Increase: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants)
Railroad Noise Impacts upon the San Joaquin Valley Christian School Merced County requires that future transportation noise levels in new school developments not exceed 70 dB Ldn at outdoor activity areas and 40 dB Ldn inside classrooms. There is an existing active railroad system that borders the northeast boundary of the proposed school site.
The results of the ambient monitoring at the project site indicate that there were 69 apparent railroad passbys over the span of the 46-hour noise monitoring period, for an average of 36 trains per day. For a conservative estimate of railroad noise exposure, BAC assumed 40 trains per day passing the project site. From that data, the railroad noise exposure at a reference distance of 100 feet from the railroad tracks was computed to be 76 dB Ldn.
The reference railroad sound exposure data cited above was projected to the centers of the nearest outdoor activity areas and classrooms on the project site and the results are shown in Table 14. The Table 14 data assume a 25 dB building façade noise reduction provided by the school buildings for the calculation of interior noise levels.
Table 14 Predicted Railroad Noise Levels on Noise-Sensitive Receptors Within Project Area Merced County Noise Standards, Distance from Noise Sensitive Location L Ldn Tracks, (feet) dn Exterior Interior Reference 100 76 -- -- Nearest Softball Field 250 64 70 -- Football Stadium 350 62 70 -- Equestrian Corral 175 66 70 -- Lower Wing Building Facade 700 32 -- 40 Agricultural Building Facade 420 36 -- 45 Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2015.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 95 April 2016 San Joaquin Valley Christian School SOURCE: Bollard Acoustical Consulting, Inc. 2016 Figure 9 Required Noise Barrier Location Environmental Analysis
The Table 14 data indicate that railroad noise levels are predicted to satisfy the County’s 70 dB Ldn exterior noise standard at playing fields and the County’s 40 dB Ldn interior noise level standard within classrooms. Additionally, except as assessed in Questions XIIa,c,d above, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to increased noise levels, nor would any exististing noise levels be exacerbated.
Question (b) Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Regarding the potential impact of construction and operation of the proposed project on nearby sensitive receptors, as proposed, the implementation of either of the project variants would not result in appreciable sources of vibration either during construction or operation. As noted above, construction activities, including excavation, grading, building construction, and paving, would be considered an intermittent noise impact throughout the construction period of the project. Construction would not include vibration-inducing activities such as pile driving or blasting. As a result, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) The only existing source of vibration in the project area is created by the passage of trains on the adjacent Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. Because of the distance separating the sensitive areas of the SJVCS project site from the railroad, proposed school uses would not be appreciably affected by this existing vibration source. Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to excessive groundborne vibration or noise, nor would any existing offsite levels of groundborne vibration or noise be exacerbated.
Questions (e)(f) Public Use Airport/Private Airstrip: CEQA Not Applicable. (Both project variants) There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the SJVCS project site. Castle Airport, a public use airport operated by Merced County, is located approximately 2.3 miles to the north of the project site. The project site is within the regulatory boundaries of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Castle Airport. As set forth in the Compatibility Plan, the project site is outside of any areas impacted by noise from Castle Airport (ALUC 2012b). Additionally, the implementation of either of the project variants would not lead to offsite effects related to aircraft noise, nor would any existing offsite levels of aircraft noise be exacerbated.
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ✓
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ✓
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ✓
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 97 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Question (a) Growth-Inducement: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of either of the proposed project variants would result in the construction and operation of a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on the 53.75 acre project site. No existing public infrastructure or new infrastructure with the capacity to serve areas beyond the project site would be affected, constructed, or removed.
Upon completion of Phase 1, the San Joaquin Valley Christian School would employ 25 associated teachers and staff. At full buildout of the proposed plan through Phase 3 and full occupancy, the school is estimated to have 60 staff. In January 2016, the labor force in Merced County totaled 114,200 persons, with an official unemployment rate of 12.8 percent (or 14,600 unemployed persons) (EDD 2016). The increased labor needs of the project can be accommodated by this existing workforce within Merced County, and would not require the importation of workers. Similarly, any additional housing demands caused by project employees could be accommodated by existing and planned housing resources within Merced County.
The population of Merced County on July 1, 2014 was estimated to be 265,069 (DOF 2014). The proposed project would not result in an increase in the County’s population; it would not exceed population projections or result in any significant growth inducing effects. The proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial new growth in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial direct or indirect growth inducement, and a less- than-significant impact would occur.
Questions (b)(c) Housing Displacement/Population Displacement: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) There are four existing single-family homes on the project site, three of which are currently occupied. Implementation of the proposed project variants would result in the demolition of two occupied single-family homes, and another home that is currently vacant. The proposed project variants would not include any new housing. Because only two occupied single- family homes would be affected, implementation of either of the project variants would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 98 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project 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 of any of the public services: Fire protection? ✓ Police protection? ✓ Schools? ✓ Parks? ✓ Other public facilities? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Public services provided in the project area include fire, police, school, library, and park services. The Merced County Fire Department would provide service to the site; the City Fire Departments in Merced and Atwater would provide mutual support. The nearest public library is the Merced County Library in the downtown Merced area, just over 3 miles southeast of the project site. The Joe Stefani Elementary School and the Franklin Elementary school lie within one-half mile to the south of the project site. Police protection in the unincorporated areas of Merced County is provided by the Merced County Sheriff’s Department, whose office is located in downtown Merced. The nearest hospital is Mercy Medical Center in Merced. Park services are discussed in more detail in Section XV, Recreation. Utility services are discussed in more detail in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Question (a) Fire/Police/Schools/Parks/Other Services: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of either of the proposed project variants would result in the construction and operation of a Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on the 53.75 acre project site. The Merced County Fire Code imposes requirements for new buildings constructed in Merced County, including plan checks, address identification, access requirements, and fire flow requirements (Merced County 2015). Compliance with the requirements as set forth by the Fire Department would be required as conditions of approval, and would reduce fire risk and hazard to levels found acceptable by the Merced County Fire Department. Therefore, there would be no increase or change in the demand for fire service that would require the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities.
No feature of the project would result in the need for new or altered facilities for police protection, schools, parks, libraries, or health services. Because no new residences would be constructed, and needed employees would be drawn from the local labor pool, no substantial increase in population is expected to result from the proposed project. No feature of the proposed project would pose unusual police protection demands. Therefore, there would be no increase in the demand for public
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 99 April 2016 Environmental Analysis services such as police facilities, schools, parks, libraries, or health services that would require the construction of new facilities or physically altered facilities. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XV. RECREATION Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ✓
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Question (a)(b) Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) No existing public recreational resources are currently located on the project site or in the vicinity. Each of the proposed project variants includes the development of multiple recreational facilities, including basketball courts, tennis courts, a pool, gymnasium, and various sports fields. Potential environmental impacts that could arise as a result of the construction of these facilities are considered in the environmental analysis contained within this Initial Study. The proposed facilities would be made available to publicly sponsored teams and groups; therefore there would therefore be no increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities that would cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of such facilities. This would be a less-than- significant impact, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 100 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, street, highways and ✓ freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ✓ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ✓
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ✓
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ✓
The following information summarizes the information and analysis contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis for SJVCSA School Project, Franklin-Beachwood Area, Merced County, California prepared on March 21, 2016 by KD Anderson & Associates Inc., attached as Appendix D. The report addresses the traffic impacts associated with development of the San Joaquin Valley Christian School, a proposed private school in an unincorporated area of Merced County, California.
This section begins with a discussion of the methods used to conduct the transportation analyses for the proposed project, as knowledge of these methods is necessary to understand how transportation impacts on the site were assessed.
METHODOLOGY The traffic impact analysis includes the collection of traffic data and the analysis of that data to describe existing traffic operating conditions in the area of the proposed school. Manual traffic count data was collected at key intersections during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) to determine turning movement traffic volumes during the 60-minute period of greatest traffic volume. Techniques identified in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual 2010 were then used to analyze the operational characteristics of the study intersections, and to identify the
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 101 April 2016 Environmental Analysis current operating conditions at each location during the 15 minute period with the greatest traffic volume. Daily traffic volumes were also identified on key roadways surrounding the school.
The analysis of project impacts involves estimating trip generation for the proposed project, and various data sources were considered for this purpose. Trip generation rates identified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation-9th Edition were reviewed and compared to data developed by the consultant from the observation of other existing private schools in order to select appropriate rates.
The analysis requires identifying the distribution of trips into and out of the project site and on adjacent streets. Because the school will not have traditional neighborhood attendance boundaries, the distribution of school-generated trips was generally based on the location of the students' residences for those currently attending the two schools that will be closed. Because many parents will drop off students as part of “commute” trips, the distribution of outbound traffic during the a.m. peak hour also reflected the SJVCS location relative to regional employment centers in the Merced area.
The analysis addresses the impacts of the new school under an “Opening Day” condition and under Full Occupancy. For the purpose of this analysis, the Opening Day enrollment was assumed to be 385 students, and 800 students could be on site under Full Occupancy.
The impacts of new school traffic were assessed based on the criteria employed by Merced County. Parking, drop-off / loading, and on-site queuing were also investigated to confirm the adequacy of the project site plan.
The cumulative impacts of the project were assessed with regards to regional growth as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The long term future condition was developed based on forecasts from the latest version of the Merced County Association of Government's (MCAG) Year 2035 regional travel demand forecasting model.
Study Intersections Based on discussions with Merced County staff, the off-site impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the following intersections: • Dan Ward Road / Franklin Road • Dan Ward Road / Ranchero Drive / School Access • Dan Ward Road / Comden Avenue / school Access • Dan Ward Road / Maple Avenue • Dan Ward Road / Beachwood Drive • Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 102 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Conditions: Project Area Roadways The following text describes the characteristics of facilities that provide access to the project site.
Dan Ward Road is a two-lane collector street that extends from Franklin Road to Beachwood Drive across the northern end of the Franklin-Beachwood area. The improved width of Dan Ward Road varies along its length, as some portions have been built out to their ultimate section with sidewalk curb and gutter, while other areas remain “rural” with unimproved shoulders. On-street parking is permitted. Single-family residences have direct access to Dan Ward Road along the length of the street. The speed limit on Dan Ward Road is posted at 25 miles per hour (mph).
New traffic counts were conducted in April 2015 for this analysis, and those counts identified the 24-hour volumes on Dan Ward Road west of Beachwood Drive at 2,389 vehicles per day (vpd).
Santa Fe Drive is an east-west Principal Arterial roadway across Merced County that provides important access to the Franklin-Beachwood area. Santa Fe Drive enters Merced County east of Turlock, and extends across the northern Atwater area past the project site to an intersection in the City of Merced on State Route 59 at Olive Drive. In the area of the project, Santa Fe Drive is a four-lane street with a continuous center Two-Way Left-Turn (TWLT) lane. There are no sidewalks along Santa Fe Drive, but the roadway has paved shoulders. The BNSF railroad runs parallel to and south of Santa Fe Drive, and limits the number of connections to Santa Fe Drive. Between Atwater and Merced, signalized intersections on Santa Fe Drive allow access from the south at Franklin Road and Beachwood Drive, while an un-signalized crossing exists at Avenue Two. As of the date of this Initial Study, the posted speed limit on Santa Fe Drive was 55 mph.
Recent traffic counts conducted in 2015 identified 24-hour volumes on Santa Fe Drive. West of Franklin Road, Santa Fe Drive carried 21,173 vpd. The volume dropped to 15,766 vpd between Belcher Avenue and Beachwood Drive, while the volume was 18,135 vpd east of Beachwood Drive.
Beachwood Drive is a two-lane, north-south collector street that traverses the Franklin-Beachwood area from an intersection on Ashby Road north across Santa Fe Drive to Belcher Avenue. In most areas, the roadway has been improved to urban standards with curbs and gutters; on-street parking is permitted. Direct residential frontage is common. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
In April 2015, Beachwood Drive carried 7,611 vpd between Santa Fe Drive and Dan Ward Road, and 4,402 vpd north of Ashby Road.
Franklin Road is a two-lane, north-south collector road that lies on the western side of the Franklin-Beachwood area. Franklin Road extends north for on- and off-ramps on northbound SR 99 across Santa Fe Drive to Bellevue Road. The level of improvements that have been made to Franklin Road vary along its length, with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks provided in the area of recent residential development in the area south of Dan Ward Road and adjoining Franklin School.
Ranchero Lane is a north-south street that connects Dan Ward Road and Lobo Avenue in the area south of the proposed project. Stefani Elementary School is located on the east side of Ranchero Lane, and the roadway has been improved to a width that is commensurate with that school’s access requirements. In the area of the school, Ranchero Lane is 52 feet wide and includes center left turn
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 103 April 2016 Environmental Analysis lanes, a raised median, as well as curb, gutter and sidewalk. This level of improvement continues north from the school to Dan Ward Road, but Ranchero Lane remains a two-lane rural road south of the school to Lobo Avenue.
In 2015 the daily traffic volume on Ranchero Lane south of Dan Ward Road was 894 vpd, and most of that traffic is likely concentrated into the periods before and after school.
Cowden Avenue is a north-south local street that will eventually extend south from Dan Ward Road to provide access to the undeveloped residential area between Dan Ward Road and Fir Avenue. Today Cowden Avenue is stubbed out for one lot width from Dan Ward Road, but the portion of Cowden Avenue south of Fir Avenue has been constructed. The existing portion of Cowden Avenue is forty feet wide with curbs, gutters, and sidewalk. On-street parking is permitted and the speed limit is 25 mph.
Elm Avenue and Maple Avenue are local north-south streets that connect Dan Ward Road and Fir Avenue in the area between the school’s anticipated access at Cowden Avenue and Beachwood Drive. Each is generally forty feet wide with curbs and gutters, but sidewalks are infrequent.
Intersection Operations The quality of traffic flow through intersections is described in terms of operating Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions using letter grades “A” through “F”, corresponding to progressively worsening operating conditions. See Table 1 in Appendix D for a more detailed definition of LOS.
To evaluate existing traffic operating conditions, peak hour turning movement count data was collected at study intersections on a weekday when Franklin-Beachwood area schools were in session. All locations were counted during the a.m. peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), because this is the time period that typically experiences the highest volume of school traffic. These counts were made on April 21, 2015. The highest hourly volume within the two-hour count window was identified as the peak hour.
The current LOS identified for all study area intersections ranges from LOS B to LOS C. However, conditions worsen for short periods of time before and after the school day due to the travel associated with existing schools. See Table 2 of Appendix D for detailed information.
The extent to which any un-signalized intersection already carries traffic volumes that may justify traffic signals was also evaluated. As noted in Table 2 of Appendix D, none of the study area intersections carry traffic volumes that would reach the level warranting a traffic signal.
Alternative Transportation Modes Transit. Transit options in the vicinity of the project site include an intercity fixed-route bus, Dial-a- Ride countywide public bus service, and various private charter services. The fixed-route bus service, “The Bus,” is operated by the Merced Regional Transit System; there are several stops in the Franklin-Beachwood area along Beachwood Drive and Dan Ward Road. The Bus Route L (Livingston Commuter) connects Livingston to Winton and Atwater, continues to Merced via Santa Fe Drive, and ends at Merced College. Route L within the Franklin-Beachwood area has stops at Dan Ward Road/Beachwood Drive, and at Dan Ward Road/Franklin Road. Route W (Winton Commuter) connects Winton to Atwater, continues through the Franklin-Beachwood area via
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 104 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Ashby Road, extends to Merced via 16th Street, and ends at 16th and T Street. Route W within the Franklin-Beachwood area has stops at Beachwood Drive/Oakland Avenue, Dan Ward Road/Beachwood Drive, and at Dan Ward Road/Franklin Road.
No school-provided bus service is planned for the proposed project.
Pedestrian Facilities. Sidewalks are limited within Franklin-Beachwood, but present in most of the suburban residential areas and near schools within the community. Portions of collector roadways have sidewalks, with many gaps and undeveloped adjacent parcels. Marked crosswalks are located along Beachwood Drive at major intersections, at Ranchero Lane near the school, and at Franklin Road near the school. Franklin Road also has overhead advance warning signs and flashing beacons for the school zone. The marked crosswalk located on Franklin Road at Lucich Drive is enhanced with user-actuated, in-pavement flashing lights.
The Franklin-Beachwood Safe Routes to School Plan identifies key projects to improve the safety of walking and biking within the study area, with a focus on children walking to the two area schools: Joe Stefani Elementary School and Franklin Elementary School. The plan was completed in November 2014 and identifies an overview of pedestrian circulation issues and suggested improvements including traffic calming devices, crosswalk enhancements, and the provision of additional and connecting sidewalk and bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Facilities. Facilities dedicated to bicyclists do not exist in the area of the project.
EVALUATION OF CIRCULATION IMPACTS Study Conditions The study evaluates weekday peak hour traffic operations in the vicinity of the project site under the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions (discussed above) • Existing Conditions Plus Project • Cumulative No Project Conditions and • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Project Characteristics that Influence Vehicle Travel To evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on traffic conditions in the study area, the volume of traffic associated with the project was estimated and superimposed onto background traffic volumes to create “Existing Plus Project conditions.” The resulting traffic volumes were used to calculate Levels of Service under opening day (385 students) and full build out (800 students) conditions. The following text describes how the volume of project-related traffic was estimated, and how project-related traffic was superimposed on background traffic volumes.
Hours of Operation: The school will replace two schools that are currently operating elsewhere in Merced County. For the purpose of analysis it has been assumed that the current operating schedule at those sites may be replicated at the new campus. According to the project proponents the school day will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. As a comparison, the other two public schools in the Franklin-Beachwood area begin later in the day, as noted in Table 3 in Appendix D.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 105 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Enrollment: The campus is assumed to ultimately accommodate 800 students. For the purpose of the traffic analysis, an Opening Day enrollment of 385 students has been assumed. The Opening Day enrollment would be roughly 2/3 the number of students attending each of the other two schools in the Franklin-Beachwood area.
Access / Circulation: The school will have vehicular access via two connections to intersections on Dan Ward Road in the area between Franklin Road and Beachwood Drive. The westernmost access would align with Ranchero Lane, and the eastern access would align with Cowden Avenue. While the school may be operated with traffic control plans that prioritize entry and/or exit, for this impact analysis each of the access points has been assumed to have full access. The project site plan includes a designated drop-off area located between the two access points and configured to allow counterclockwise circulation.
Trip Generation Rates: The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes trip generation rates for a variety of land uses based on observations made nationally. This data is commonly used to project the volume of traffic associated with planned development. The latest ITE rates are presented in the document Trip Generation 9th Edition. As shown, private schools are reported to generate trips at higher rates, with 0.81 to 0.90 trips per student reported during the a.m. peak hour and 0.58 to 0.60 trips per student in the afternoon. Private schools typically generate more traffic because they often lack student bussing and may draw students from more distant locations.
Trip Generation Forecasts: As noted in Table 4 of Appendix D, the opening day 385 student enrollment could generate 954 daily trips, with 312 trips generated in the a.m. peak hour and 223 trips occurring during the peak afternoon hour. At full occupancy, the 800 student enrollment may generate 1,984 daily trips, with 648 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 484 trips in the afternoon peak hour.
Trip Distribution: The regional distribution of trips generated by the project has been estimated based on information regarding the residences of current students as well as the project proponents’ expectations of the residences of future students as the campus enrollment increases. Most existing students reside in the areas east of the proposed project site. When the school is operating in Franklin-Beachwood, it is likely that a greater share of the students will be drawn from the Atwater and Franklin-Beachwood areas. In the long term, the share drawn from Northern Merced may increase as that area develops as well. Table 5 of Appendix D identifies the distribution assumptions made for opening day and Year 2035 conditions.
The distribution of exiting trips leaving the school will be somewhat different since many parents will elect to continue from the school on to their place of employment, shopping, etc., rather than simply returning homes. Thus the exiting patterns are weighted slightly more towards regional employment centers.
Trip Assignment: The routes used to travel to and from the school will reflect the shortest travel time between the school and trip origins / destinations, as well as the configuration of access to the Franklin-Beachwood area via SR 99. For example, the inbound traffic using northbound SR 99 will arrive via the SR 99 / Franklin Road ramps, but that interchange lacks southbound SR 99 access. Thus, trips leaving the school and headed to southbound SR 99 would be heading to the 16th Avenue or V Street ramps. The trips assignment presented in the traffic study assumes that both site access points will be used by entering and exiting traffic. Because the school’s primary drop off
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 106 April 2016 Environmental Analysis zone can be reached from both intersections, and no formal routing plan for student drop-off has been prepared, it is reasonable to assume “random” arrival and departure via both locations. However, a formal routing plan that minimizes conflicts may be a part of project mitigation.
Traffic Effects of the Proposed Project This section summarizes the results of the traffic evaluation of existing plus project conditions. For additional information, please refer to Appendix D, Figure 5 and Table 6.
Existing Plus Opening Day 385 Student Enrollment Intersection Levels of Service: (Both project variants) All intersections operate with Level of Service that satisfy the minimum LOS D standard with the Opening Day enrollment of 385 students. Existing Plus 800 Students Intersection Levels of Service: (Both project variants) If the school were to operate with 800 students under the existing condition baseline, four intersections would operate below LOS D: • Dan Ward Road / Franklin Road: Motorists waiting to turn right or left onto Franklin Road would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Ranchero Lane: Motorists waiting to exit the site on Ranchero Lane in any direction would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue: Motorists waiting to leave the site in any direction would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Beachwood Drive: Motorists on eastbound Dan Ward Road would experience delays in any direction that are indicative of LOS F.
Special Events / Extra Curricular Activities: (Both project variants) The project site plan includes facilities to host athletic events. The most appreciable traffic would accompany use of the football field and field house. The amount of traffic accompanying use of these facilities would be dependent on the seating provided.
The maximum trip generation associated with extracurricular activities would occur before and after a varsity game. If lighting is not provided, then peak conditions would typically occur on Saturday afternoons, while if the field were to be lighted, the peak traffic would likely occur in the period from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. before an evening game and from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. after a game. While some traffic accompanying use of the fields and field house will occur during the weekday p.m. peak hour (i.e., 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) the number of trips generated would be much less.
Applying the observed trip generation rates to the seating anticipated with the football field suggests that an “at capacity” event with 1,500 to 2,000 persons in attendance could generate 328 to 438 trips in the hour before the start of the varsity game and 673 to 897 trips in the hour at the end of the varsity game. These forecasts are similar to the trip generation associated with the regular operation of the school. Because background traffic volumes on streets in the Franklin-Beachwood area on Saturday or on Friday evenings are lower than those occurring in the morning peak hour, the effects of extracurricular events at the project site would be no worse than those already identified for the project,.
Cumulative Impacts: (Both project variants) The cumulative impacts of operating the proposed school have been investigated within the context of long-term future background traffic conditions accompanying development under the Merced County General Plan to the year 2035. For a
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 107 April 2016 Environmental Analysis discussion of the assumptions underlying the cumulative scenario, including regional traffic growth, circulation system improvements, and traffic volume forecasts, please refer to Appendix D.
Cumulative Year 2035 No Project Traffic Operations: (Both project variants) The westbound approach to the Franklin Road / Dan Ward Road intersection would operate at LOS E.
Cumulative Year 2035 Plus Project: Five of the six study intersections would be expected to operate below LOS D: • Franklin Road / Dan Ward Road: The westbound approach will operate at LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Ranchero Lane: The northbound and southbound approaches will operate at LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue: The northbound and southbound approaches will operate at LOS F. • Beachwood Drive / Dan Ward Road: The eastbound approach will operate at LOS F. • Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive: If no changes to current traffic signal timing are made, then the intersection will operate at LOS F. However, the signal would work at LOS D if the signal timing were optimized for future conditions.
Parking, Drop-Off, and Loading (Both project variants) Schools attract vehicular traffic to and from the site as students are delivered to the site in the morning and are transported home at the end of the school day. The interface between the school and the public street system occurs in designated drop-off and loading areas, in school parking lots, and along streets fronting schools. The nature of activity in these areas is different before school, during the school day, and after school.
School staff and visitors will park on site during the day, as will those high school age students who drive a vehicle to school. While determining the number of spaces needed for staff and visitors is relatively straightforward, the number of spaces needed for student parking can vary greatly from school to school based on local demographics, availability of alternative transportation modes, etc.
Published sources were considered to estimate regular parking demands, and a principal at a Sacramento area charter high school was contacted to discuss his experience. To conform this vaying data, the three components of parking demand were considered separately. • The project proponents envision a total of 60 staff at the 800 student enrollment level. Each could require a parking space. • The number of regular parking spaces required for private and charter school students who drive themselves to school is less than that provided at regular public schools. Observation of Northern California area high schools has revealed that the ratio of high school students to parked student vehicles can be as high as 4:1 at suburban schools in relatively “well to do” areas, while ratios as low as 30:1 have been observed in more disadvantaged urban areas. At 10 to 20 high school age students per parking space, 20 to 40 student parking spaces would be needed. • Assuming a few visitors during the day (i.e., 5 vehicles), a total of 85 to 105 vehicles could be parked at the project site during the day.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 108 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Parents begin to arrive well before the end of the school day to claim a spot in line in loading areas or to find a short-term parking space. The maximum vehicle accumulation occurs after students are released at the end of the day but before waiting parents have loaded their student and begun to leave the site. The maximum number of vehicles waiting in the afternoon that need to be accommodated can vary from school to school based on factors such as modal choice, bussing, etc. Based on the consultant’s experience with other private and charter schools, the number of waiting vehicles in the afternoon is likely to be approximately equal to 25 percent of the school enrollment. On opening day, roughly 96 vehicles could be waiting at the end of the school day, and this number could increase to 200 vehicles at full occupancy if all students are released at the same time.
REGULATORY SETTING Merced County General Plan. The Circulation Element of the Merced County General Plan outlines goals and policies that coordinate the transportation and circulation system with planned land uses. The General Plan has the following level of service policy relevant to this study:
Policy CIR-1.5: County Level of Service Standards (RDR) Implement a Countywide roadway system that achieves the following level-of-service (LOS) standards during peak traffic periods: a) For roadways located within rural areas: LOS "C" or better. b) For roadways located outside Urban Communities that serve as connectors between Urban Communities: LOS of “D” or better. c) For roadways located within Urban Communities: LOS of "D" or better.
Based on this guidance, the minimum standard on all study area intersections is LOS D.
Policy CIR-1.6: Level of Service “E” Exception (RDR) Allow a level of service "E" or worse only on a minor component of the circulation system (such as a left turn movement from a local roadway) if the major component of the circulation system (such as a through movement on a collector or arterial roadway) would be significantly compromised in the process of improving the level of service of the minor component.
Policy CIR-1.22: Complete Streets (RDR) Require new urban streets within Urban Communities to be designed and constructed to not only accommodate automobile, truck, and bus traffic, but to also serve all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers of all ages and abilities. This includes: • Creating multi-modal street connections in order to establish a comprehensive, integrated, and connected transportation network; • Minimizing curb cuts along non-local streets; • Consider planting street trees adjacent to curbs and between the street and sidewalk to provide a buffer between the pedestrian and the automobile, where appropriate; • Constructing sidewalks on both sides of streets, where feasible; • Coordinating with other agencies and cities to ensure connections are made between jurisdictions; and, • Incorporating traffic calming devices such as roundabouts, bulb-outs at intersections, and traffic tables.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 109 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Policy CIR-1.23: At-Grade Railroad Crossing Guidelines (RDR/IGC/JP) Work with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the affected railroads to monitor the effects of development, and implement necessary and applicable design improvements at railroad crossings.
Significance Criteria for Bikeways. There are no Merced County-adopted criteria for evaluating the “capacity” of bikeways. A significant bikeway impact would occur if the project hindered or eliminated an existing designated bikeway, or if the project interfered with implementation of a proposed bikeway. A significant bikeway impact could occur if the project were to result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists, including unsafe bicycle/pedestrian or bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts.
Significance Criteria for Pedestrian Circulation. A significant pedestrian circulation impact would occur if the project were to result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians, including unsafe pedestrian/bicycle or pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts.
Criteria for Local Vehicular Circulation. A significant impact to the local pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, and/or transit circulation would occur if the normal operations of automobile and truck access to the project results in blockage to sidewalks, streets and/or alleys.
Parking / Queuing. A significant impact would occur if queuing extending back from school drop-off and loading areas blocked through traffic on adjoining public streets.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Questions (a)(b) Conflict with Transportation Plan/Congestion Management Plan: Less- than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) Implementation of the proposed San Joaquin Valley Christian School project would result in an increase in traffic compared to Existing and Cumulative Conditions due to staff, student, and visitor vehicle trips. The following summarizes the results and conclusions of the KD Anderson Traffic Impact Analysis. For detailed results, please refer to Appendix D, Traffic Impact Analysis for SJVCSA School Project, Franklin- Beachwood Area, Merced County, California.
Existing Plus Opening Day 385 Student Enrollment Intersection Levels of Service: All intersections operate with Levels of Service that satisfy the minimum LOS D standard with the Opening Day enrollment of 385 students. These Levels of Service would meet the County’s LOS D standard. No significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required. Existing Plus 800 Students Intersection Levels of Service: If the school were to operate with 800 students under the existing conditions baseline, four intersections would operate below LOS D: • Dan Ward Road / Franklin Road: Motorists waiting to turn onto Franklin Road would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Ranchero Lane: Motorists waiting to exit the site on Ranchero Lane would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue: Motorists waiting to leave the site would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Beachwood Drive: Motorists on eastbound Dan Ward Road would experience delays that are indicative of LOS F.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 110 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
These Levels of Service would not meet the County’s LOS D standard. For all studied intersections except the Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive and Dan Ward Road / Maple Avenue intersections, this would be a significant impact and mitigation would be required as set forth in Mitigation Measure TRF-2. Special Events: Applying the observed trip generation rates to the seating anticipated with the football field suggests that an “at capacity” event with 1,500 to 2,000 persons in attendance could generate 328 to 438 trips in the hour before the start of the varsity game and 673 to 897 trips in the hour at the end of the varsity game. These forecasts are similar to the trip generation associated with the regular operation of the school. Because background traffic volumes on streets in the Franklin-Beachwood area on Saturday or on Friday evenings are lower than those occurring in the morning peak hour, the effects of extracurricular events at the project site would be no worse than those already identified for the project. This would be a significant impact, and implementation of mitigation identified for Opening Day and Phase 2 conditions would be required as set forth in Mitigation Measures TRF-1 and TRF-2.
Mitigation Measure TRF-1: Opening Day Improvements
Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the SJVCS, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall implement the following measures.
(a) Physical Improvements. Install standard frontage improvements along Dan Ward Road. (b) School Bell Schedule. Avoid beginning and ending the school day at the times when other local schools begin or end. (c) Traffic Management. The school shall implement an internal traffic flow pattern that limits inbound traffic only to the Cowden Avenue driveway and outbound traffic only to the Ranchero Lane driveway.
Mitigation Measure TRF-2: Phase 2 Improvements Upon the initiation of Phase 2 development or construction, the applicants shall submit bi- annual attendance reports to the County of Merced Department of Public Works, Roads Division and the Community and Economic Development Department at the commencement of the Spring Semester and Fall Semester sessions. The project applicant or any successor in interest shall implement the following measures in addition to continuing Mitigation Measures TRF-1b and TRF-1c. (a) Physical Improvements. The following improvements shall be constructed: 1. If school attendance meets or exceeds 425 students, install a Traffic Signal at the Franklin Road/Dan Ward Road intersection. 2. If school attendance meets or exceeds 585 students, install a Traffic Signal at the Dan Ward Road/Ranchero Lane intersection. 3. If school attendance meets or exceeds 475 students, the applicant shall pay their proportionate share of the installation of a Traffic Signal at the Dan Ward Road/Beachwood Drive intersection that is coordinated with the Santa Fe Drive signal and the BNSF railroad crossing.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 111 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
(b) Reimbursement. For the identified improvement at the Dan Ward Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection, if no fee program is in place and the improvement cited above is constructed by the applicant or any successor, the applicant or successor may request that the County enter into a reimbursement agreement or agreements to refund any improvement costs beyond the applicant’s or successor’s fair share of each improvement. Approval of a reimbursement agreement by the County shall not be unreasonably withheld.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRF-1 a-c and TRF-2a, traffic conditions would meet County standards with 800 students, with one exception. At the Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue intersection, northbound vehicles would experience delays that are indicative of LOS E. LOS E exceeds the minimum LOS D standard but can be accepted under County General Plan Policy CIR- 1.6: Level of Service “E” Exception. All other locations would operate at LOS D or better, thereby meeting County standards.
Cumulative Year 2035 Plus Project: Without mitigation, five of the six study intersections would be expected to operate below the LOS D: • Franklin Road / Dan Ward Road: The westbound approach will operate at LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Ranchero Lane: The northbound and southbound approaches will operate at LOS F. • Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue: The northbound and southbound approaches will operate at LOS F. • Beachwood Drive / Dan Ward Road: The eastbound approach will operate at LOS F. • Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive: If no changes to current traffic signal timing are made, then the intersection will operate at LOS E. However, the signal would work at LOS D if the signal timing were optimized for future conditions.
These Levels of Service would not meet the County’s LOS D standard. For all the cited intersections, this would be a significant impact and mitigation would be required. However, prior implementation of Mitigation Measures TRF-1 and TRF-2 would result in all of the study intersections operating at LOS D or above under the cumulative plus project condition, except for the Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue intersection.
Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Cumulative Year Improvements The following measures shall be implemented when enrollment reaches 800 students, or by the year 2035, whichever occurs soonest after project approval.
(a) Continue implementing Mitigation Measures TRF-1b and TRF-1c. (b) If not previously constructed and the student population triggers cited in Mitigation Measure TRF-2 have been met or exceeded, pay adopted traffic mitigation fees or construct the traffic controls set forth in the Measure. (c) Physical Improvements. If these improvements have not previously been constructed by others, or are not programmed improvements in fee programs existing when enrollment reaches 800 students or the year 2035 that would result in the construction of the identified improvements, install an overlap phase at the Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive signal for the NB right turn on Beachwood Drive. (d) Reimbursement. For the identified improvement at the Dan Ward Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection, if no fee program is in place and the improvement cited above is constructed by
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 112 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
the applicant or any successor, the applicant or successor may request that the County enter into a reimbursement agreement or agreements to refund any improvement costs beyond the applicant’s or successor’s fair share of the improvement. Approval of a reimbursement agreement by the County shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Conclusion. Under project plus existing and cumulative conditions, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, all study area intersections with the exception of Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue would ultimately satisfy the County’s minimum LOS D standard. The Dan Ward Road / Cowden Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F. This LOS would exceed the minimum LOS D standard but can be accepted under County General Plan Policy CIR-1.6: Level of Service Exception. There would be no residual effects, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Question (c) Air Traffic: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Implementation of either of the proposed project variants would not result in the modification of any air travel route. Air safety impacts are assessed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Questions e and f, of this Initial Study. For detailed information, please refer to that section. The proposed SJVCS site is located within the Airport Influence Area of Castle Airport approximately 12,200 feet (2.3 miles) southwest of Runway 31, and within 3 Compatibility Zones (Zones B2, C, and D) as shown on Figure 8. Basic compatibility criteria for Castle Airport are set forth in Table 2A of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Compatibility Plan). Table 10 in Section VIII of this Initial Study summarizes the criteria applicable to the SJVCS project. Policy 1.4.3(h) of the Compatibility Plan defines the development of a school site as a “major land use action” that is subject to review by the ALUC to determine the consistency of the proposed school with the policies of the Compatibility Plan. On March 21, 2015, Merced County Planning staff presented the proposed SJVCS project to the ALUC for a compatibility determination. At that time, the ALUC found that the proposed SJVCS project was consistent with the provisions of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Since that action, the project applicants have obtained additional land for the school site, and have revised the site plan accordingly. This revised project as assessed in this Initial Study also has been reviewed by the ALUC, which found that the revised SJVCS project also was consistent with the provisions of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
No private airfields are located within two miles of the project area. Because no private airfields are located in the vicinity of the proposed project, and the project variants have been determined to be consistent with the standards of the Castle Airport Compatibility Plan, no at-risk populations at the proposed project site would be exposed to hazards due to aircraft overflight, and thereby require a change in approach or departure paths. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be necessary. Questions (d) Safety Hazards: Less-than-significant Impact. (Both project variants) Vehicle traffic hazards could occur if insufficient parking were provided on the project site, and traffic queued onto nearby public streets. As noted above, vehicular access to and from the proposed project would be provided at two locations. The school will have vehicular access via two connections to intersections on Dan Ward Road in the area between Franklin Road and Beachwood Drive. The westernmost access would align with Ranchero Lane, and the eastern access would align with Cowden Avenue. Review of the project site plan indicates that the proposed project will provide dedicated parking and parent drop off / loading areas. A total of 407 parking spaces will be available, along with a parent drop off area.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 113 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
During the midday the parking supply will need to accommodate staff, visitors, and high school student vehicles. As noted previously, these demands are 60, 5, and 20 to 40 vehicles, for a total of 85 to 105 parked vehicles. This total can easily be accommodated on site.
The worst case parking / loading demands would occur in the afternoon when parents arrive before students have departed. If all students are released at one time, the number of vehicles to be accommodated at one time is the sum of staff parking (60 vehicles), student parking (40 vehicles) and parent vehicles (200 vehicles) or 300 vehicles. This total would need to be accommodated in the regular parking spaces (407 spaces), in designated loading areas and in queuing areas in advance of the drop-off loading zones. Projected demand could be accommodated by the proposed parking spaces, and parking would not be a significant impact. No mitigation would be necessary.
Question (e) Emergency Access: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants) The proposed site of the SJV Christian School is located north of Dan Ward Road, between the intersections of Dan Ward Road with Ranchero Lane and Beachwood Drive in the Franklin/Beachwood area of unincorporated Merced County (see Figures 1 and 2). Existing access to the project site is provided by Dan Ward Road. Regional access is provided by Santa Fe Drive, Beachwood Drive, Franklin Road, and State Route 99.
The Merced County 2030 General Plan (Merced County 2030) designates state highways and freeways, and county expressways and arterial streets as emergency evacuation routes. In the project vicinity, these routes include Santa Fe Drive and State Route 99 (Merced County 2013). Implementation of either of the proposed project variants would result in the addition of a fourth leg to the existing 3-way intersection of Ranchero Lane and Dan Ward Road. Except as required by mitigation in Mitigation Measures TRF-1 through TRF-3 to improve traffic circulation, the proposed project does not include any additional modifications of existing area roadways or intersections. Although the project variants would each add significant amounts of traffic that could, if unmitigated, interfere with emergency response or evacuation, after the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRF-1 through TRF-3, operations on all roadways and at intersections in the project vicinity would meet County General Plan standards. Because added traffic from the project variants could adversely affect emergency operations, this would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-4 would reduce this potential effect below a level of significance. No residual impact would remain, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure TRF-4: Implement All Traffic Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures TRF-1 through TRF-3.
Question (f) Public Transit/Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. (Both project variants)
Bicycles No dedicated bicycle facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site.
A significant bikeway impact would occur if the project hindered or eliminated an existing designated bikeway, or if the project interfered with implementation of a proposed bikeway. A significant bikeway impact could occur if the project were to result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists, including unsafe bicycle/pedestrian or bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 114 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Because the proposed private school would draw students from a broad area, it is less likely to generate bicycle trips than normal neighborhood schools would. It is possible that a few students residing in the areas within a mile of the campus may elect to ride to the site. In this case, bicycles would mix with automobiles on the streets adjoining the school. Because existing streets lack shoulders, conflicts could occur between cyclists and motorized vehicles. This would be a significant impact, and mitigation would be required.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-5 would avoid this affect in the project area by providing signed and marked bike lanes for bicyclists. Implementation of this measure would reduce the effects of implementing the project on bicycle safety below a level of significance; no residual impact would remain, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure TRF-5: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the project applicant or successor in interest shall establish a class III bike route in both directions along the section of Dan Ward Road between Beachwood Drive and Franklin Road. The features necessary to identify the bike route shall consist of signs and “sharrow” pavement markings.
Pedestrians A significant pedestrian circulation impact would occur if the project were to result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians, including unsafe pedestrian / bicycle or pedestrian / motor vehicle conflicts. The issues associated with pedestrian access are similar to those discussed with regards to bicycles. As a regional attraction, fewer students would be expected to walk to the school than would be expected at normal neighborhood schools.
Sidewalks already exist on the south side of Dan Ward Road across from the school and on Ranchero Lane. As proposed, each of the project variants would be required to improve the frontage of school property on the north side of Dan Ward Road, including sidewalks.
Some students residing in the local area may elect to walk to the site. In this case, pedestrians would mix with automobiles on the streets adjoining the school. Because existing streets lack paved shoulders or sidewalks in some locations conflicts could occur between pedestrians and motorized vehicles. This would be a significant impact, and mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-6 would provide a safe route to the school for pedestrians. The impact would be reduced below a level of significance, no residual impact would remain, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Mitigation Measure TRF-6: (a) Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, install an improved pedestrian crossing with proactive warning devices at the Ranchero Lane/Dan Ward intersection
(b) Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 – construct a sidewalk on the south side of Dan Ward Road from the end of the existing sidewalk east of Cowden Avenue to Elm Avenue; construct an improved pedestrian crossing with proactive warning devices at the Cowden Avenue/Dan Ward intersection
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 115 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ✓
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ✓
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ✓
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ✓
e) 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? ✓
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ✓
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water Supply Potable water for the Franklin-Beachwood Community is provided by the Meadowbrook Water Company, including existing residences that are part of the SJVCS site. The Meadowbrook Water Company was founded in 1955 to serve a small subdivision in what is now known as the Franklin- Beachwood area. Most of the land in the Meadowbrook service area was originally agricultural land and dairy farms. Over time, many farmers subdivided their land and the agricultural lands were converted to urban uses, primarily residential. As of 2005, Meadowbrook was serving groundwater to more than 1,600 homes and businesses. (MIRWMP 2013) Groundwater is the only District water source, and is currently provided by three wells (Meadowbrook 2014). Water supply from the District’s wells is estimated at 139 acre-feet per year (MIRWMP 2013).
The project site is located in the Merced groundwater subbasin, and in the Lower Bear Creek watershed. Merced Subbasin groundwater elevations have been monitored by DWR, MID, and other entities since the 1950s. This monitoring data demonstrates that since 1980, average groundwater levels beneath the Merced Subbasin have declined approximately 14 feet, with most of this decline occurring between 1980 and 1996. Based on this information, the Merced Subbasin is considered to be in a state of mild long-term groundwater level decline. Data indicating a decline in groundwater levels has been normalized over the entire basin; local decreases have ranged from 5
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 116 April 2016 Environmental Analysis feet in the southwesterly area to more than 50 feet south of Le Grand, along the Chowchilla River. (MIRWMP 2013)
No Urban Water Management Plan has been prepared for the Meadowbrook Water District. The District and its customers do, however, have to comply with statewide restrictions on water use. For more information regarding state drought requirements, refer to the Regulatory Framework, below.
Historic water use on the site has primarily been for agriculture. Aerial photographs of the project area indicate that as early as 1998 most of the western and central portions of the project site were used as irrigated pasture. In 2011 the western portion of the site was planted in field crops (Google Earth Pro 2015b). Additionally, domestic water has been served to 4 existing residences on the project site. No information regarding previous water use on the project site is available.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal The Franklin County Water District (FCWD) was formed in 1962 and is empowered to provide wastewater service to the unincorporated community of Franklin Beachwood. The District’s service area reaches north to Santa Fe Drive, east to El Capitan Canal, south to Ashby Road, and West to Franklin. The District also provides service to a small area of single family residences on the north side of Dan Ward Road7 and to two developments west of Franklin Road. Within this area, the District collects and treats wastewater at a treatment plant located on Drake Avenue in Merced (LAFCO 2007).
In 2007, FCWD provided sewer service to 651 connections, including residential units, three mobile home parks, and two schools. Its total system capacity at that time was 600,000 gallons per day (gpd), and it had an average wastewater flow of .371 mgd. The District’s facilities included a wastewater treatment plant and two lift stations. At that time, the District was preparing to install an additional regional lift station to serve the western portion of the District. District staff stated that these facilities were adequate to serve current demand. (LAFCO 2007)
The FCWD operates its facilities under a permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
During project planning, a representative of the applicant contacted the FCWD regarding sewer services provided to the project site. Most of the residences that exist on the project site are provided sewer service by the FCWD. However, according to a representative of the FCWD, sewer service is not supplied to the 2738 Dan Ward Road address by the FCWD. The FCWD representative stated that their records indicate that the mobile home located in the southwestern portion of subject site parcel 057-050-059 is connected to an on-site septic system.
On-site soil properties have the potential to affect the absorption of effluent due to the presence of a hardpan and slow percolation rates. Three soils types are present on the project site as shown in Table 15.
7 According to the Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), in 2007, the majority of the project site was not within the District’s boundaries.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 117 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Table 15 Suitability of Soils on the Project Site for Septic Tank Absorption Fields Soil Map Acres in Percent of Soil Unit Name Rating Rating Reasons Unit Project Area Project Area AgA Atwater loamy sand, Somewhat Depth to cemented pan 48 88.6 % deep over hardpan, 0 to limited 3 percent slopes GeA Greenfield sandy loam, Very limited Depth to saturated zone, 3.2 6.0 % deep over hardpan, Slow water movement, poorly drained variant, 0 Depth to cemented pan to 1 percent slopes SbA San Joaquin laom, 0 to 3 Very limited Depth to cemented pan 2.9 5.4 % percent slopes Source: NRCS 2015
As defined by the NRCS, septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is evaluated by the NRCS. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. (NRCS 2015)
Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. “Not limited” indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. “Somewhat limited” indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. “Very limited” indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. (NRCS 2015)
The majority of the area of leach fields proposed to serve the SJVCS project would be located on Atwater loamy sand, which is rated as “somewhat limited” by the NRCS.
Stormwater Infrastructure The project site is currently fallow, although forage crops have been grown on the site in the past. Other than irrigation ditches adjacent to and within fields, and an existing depression in the northwestern corner of the site, no engineered stormwater facilities are located on the project site. All drainage is by sheet flow internally and into surrounding areas. For additional information regarding the proposed design of stormwater infrastructure and the potential effects of the project on stormwater quality and quantity, please refer to Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 118 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Solid Waste Disposal Wilton Disposal/Waste Management would provide solid waste disposal services at the project site (Roberts pers. comm. 2015). The solid waste would be transported to the Highway 59 Landfill operated by the Merced County Association of Governments Regional Waste Management Authority. At existing and planned disposal rates, this landfill would reach capacity in 2065. With implementation of a recently approved expansion plan, the operational life of the landfill would be extended to sometime between 2076 and 2080 (MCRWMA 2015).
Other Utilities Private utilities provide electric, gas, telephone, internet, and cable television services.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Water Supply California has suffered an ongoing and increasingly severe drought. On April 1, 2015, the California Governor issued Executive Order B-29-15 setting forth requirements and responsibilities of the State and its various agencies, and water purveyors (Governor 2015). (This Executive Order has been renewed through October 31, 2016 by Executive Order B-36-15.) Provision 5 of Executive Order B-29-15 requires institutional uses such as the proposed SJVCS to implement water efficiency measures to reduce potable water use by 25 percent. Provision 7 directs the State to adopt restrictions to ban the use of potable water for irrigation outside of newly constructed homes and buildings when that water is not delivered by drip or microspray systems. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board has issued additional regulations pursuant to the Executive Order. With respect to the proposed project, the State Board prohibits using potable water to wash sidewalks and driveways (SWRCB 2015). The Public Utilities Commission has also directed the Meadowbrook Water Company to institute programs to reduce water use within the Company’s service area by 25 percent below that used in 2013, and imposed other conservation requirements (CPUC 2015).
In response to these State actions, the Meadowbrook Water Company has instituted a series of water conservation measures within its service area. Those measures applicable to the proposed SJVCS project include: 1. A prohibition on Watering outdoor landscapes in a way that causes water to “runoff” onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures. 2. Using drinking water to wash driveways and sidewalks. 3. Using drinking water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is recirculated. (Meadowbrook 2015a)
The Company has also instituted outdoor watering restrictions to permit watering only two days per week during specified hours. (Meadowbrook 2015b)
Water provided for agricultural purposes, such as that provided by MID, is not governed by the Governor’s Executive Order or its extension. Rather the surface water supply available to agricultural water purveyors is regulated by the various water rights, permits, and licenses issued to the purveyor, or contracts with state and federal water management agencies. Also, the State Water
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 119 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Resources Control Board maintains continuing authority over surface water rights, and in 2015 issued curtailment orders to many water purveyors to reduce diversions. Finally, surface water diversions such as those made by MID are subject to the various requirements of regulations designed to protect sensitive habitats and species, including the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and various species of native fish. The net effect of these regulations is that during the current drought, agricultural water deliveries of water diverted from surface sources have been constrained. To provide supply reliability, some agricultural purveyors supplement their surface water supplies with groundwater, which is not currently regulated.
The amount of water made available to individual farmers or agricultural users depends upon the amount of water made available to each agricultural purveyor under the terms of its various rights, contracts, and applicable regulations. Typically, purveyors do not provide more water to end users than is made available to them. In normal water years, MID delivers 500,000 acre-feet of surface water to irrigators. In 2015, MID proposed to release no water for irrigation as a result of the ongoing drought, although the District did release 10,000 acre-feet on an emergency basis in July 2015. For 2016, MID proposes to deliver 275,000 acre-feet of surface water to be used for irrigation. (Merced Sun-Star 2016)
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal In June 2012, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS). The policy establishes a set of comprehensive regulations for all aspects of siting, construction, and operating OWTS, including those proposed by the SJVCS. Owners of OWTS with projected flow over 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) are required to notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These OWTS may be required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge for coverage of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or a Waiver of WDR.
The Merced County Division of Environmental Health (DEH) is the Local Agency Management entity for implementation of the SWRCB’s OWTS policy. DEH enforces design standards for the operation and maintenance of on-site sewage disposal systems to minimize potential pollution of groundwater and surface water features (Merced County 1995). DEH existing design standards for operation and maintenance of OWTS are expected to meet the requirements of the Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. DEH jurisdiction is limited to those OWTS with a capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per day.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Questions (a)(b)(e) Wastewater Treatment/Wastewater Treatment Facility: Less-than- significant Impact with Mitigation. As proposed, the proposed SJVCS project could be served by a combination of community wastewater collection and treatment provided by the Franklin County Water District, or individual OWTS located on the project site. At the time of preparation of this Initial Study, the SJVCSA is proposing two methods to provide wastewater treatment services to the site. The Franklin County Water District may have some capacity to treat a portion of the wastewater generated by Phase 1 of the school. The FCWD is also investigating the expansion of their disposal capacity to serve buildout of the proposed campus and its intermediate phases. For wastewater generated in Phase 1 in excess of the FCWD’s current treatment capacity, and to the extent that the FCWD is unable to provide additional capacity for future phases, the SJVCSA
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 120 April 2016 Environmental Analysis proposes that the wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the school be provided by a series of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) consisting of septic tanks and double-depth leach fields. Septic tanks and leach fields would be developed within each of the initial three project phases as demand required. As necessary, septic systems would be sited in open areas of the campus, including a landscaped plaza, a soccer field, and several undeveloped areas of the site near the proposed agricultural facilities. Areas reserved for replacement leach line would be located immediately adjacent to the proposed primary leach fields.
As set forth in Table 15, soils on the project site are not optimal for successful operation of an OWTS, although the majority of site contains soils that are only somewhat limited. “Somewhat limited” indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use (in this case septic absorption fields). The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. (NRCS 2015)
The proposed system has been reviewed in preliminary form by the Merced County Division of Environmental Health. Summarily, DEH found: • According to the school’s current operational statement (8/5/2015), phase 1 provides a school for grades 7 – 12 (enrollment 175, increasing to 230; staff 25, increasing to 30). Phase 2 would expand services to grades Pre-K – 12 (enrollment 385; staff 40). Phase 3 is a growth phase, with build-out at 800 students, staff at 60. • Calculations indicate sewage flow at the beginning of phase 2 would exceed 10,000 gal/day. Sewage flow at build out is expected to be 22,000 - 25,000 gal/day. Systems with flows greater than 10,000 gal/day are under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board). • The Board and MCDEH expect sewage treatment and distribution to be centralized whenever possible.
The first phase of the on-site sewage disposal system to be constructed will be required to conform to Merced County DEH minimum design standards for on-site sewage disposal systems. Later phases would likely be under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.
Design calculations and detailed OWTS facility designs have not yet been submitted to Merced County. Additionally, the SJVCS project proposes to use OWTS to meet all of the wastewater treatment and disposal requirements in excess of the capacity provided by the centralized community facilities operated by the FCWD. For these reasons, operation of the proposed septic system could result in adverse effects to groundwater quality. This would be a significant impact, and the following mitigation measures as proposed by DEH, RWQCB, and the FCWD would be necessary. Implementation of these measures would ensure that any proposed OWTS would operate to avoid adverse effects to water quality, and that later phases of the project either connect to FCWD facilities or that treatment levels be advanced if connection is not possible. Potential water quality impacts would be reduced below a level of significance, and no additional mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 121 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: OWTS Phase 1 Requirements (a) If FCWD collection and treatment capacity is available to serve Phase 1 of the SJVCS project that is equal to the design capacity of any planned OWTS or any multiple of planned OWTS facilities, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall connect to the community system prior to occupancy to the extent defined above. (b) If wastewater collection and treatment capacity is not available or is insufficient to serve the entire demand for wastewater services at buildout of Phase 1, the applicant shall design and submit a plan for a single OWTS or multiple OWTS to the Merced County DEH for review and approval. The OWTS shall be installed as approved by DEH prior to the occupancy of Phase 1. The OWTS and supporting documentation shall meet the following standards:
1. The initial on-site septic system, under the jurisdiction of Merced County Division of Environmental Health (MCDEH), shall be designed and installed to accommodate daily flow of no more than 10,000 gal/day (school phase 1). MCDEH will not approve a design or installation of a system that won’t be used until under Regional Board jurisdiction. 2. The designing engineer shall provide sewage flow and distribution calculations to MCDEH. 3. The Merced County On-Site Septic System Standards require installation of a standard trench (3’ x 3’ with 18” of rock below the pipe). This design enhances aerobic treatment in the trench and maximizes evaporation. The USDA Soil Conservation Service soil survey shows the soil in that area as AgA, with cemented hardpan somewhere between 3.5 and 5 feet and probably moderate permeability in the soil below the hardpan. Under these soil conditions, MCDEH will allow a deeper trench with a design that still enhances aerobic treatment in the trench and encourages evaporation. MCDEH will recognize absorption only in the sidewalls below the hardpan, with a maximum of 36” below the bottom of the hardpan. All hardpan from the trench shall be removed. The top of the perforated pipe shall be no deeper than 18” bgs and the amount of soil over the trench shall be no deeper than 14”. 4. A percolation test, per Merced County On-Site Septic System Standards, shall be performed by a qualified person at each of the proposed leachfield locations at a depth of 12" below the bottom of the hardpan. The results shall be provided to MCDEH and shall be used to calculate the application rate.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Wastewater Treatment Post-Phase 1 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 or any succeeding phase, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall: (a) If and when Franklin County Water District is willing to provide a can-and-will-serve letter, the school shall connect to the District within one year. The Regional Water Quality Control Board supports this action and would require it under Board jurisdiction. Connection to the District may require part of the school property to be annexed into the District. (b) Prior to increasing sewage flow to greater than 10,000 gal/day the school shall either divert all sewage flow to the Franklin County Water District or the on-site septic system shall be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 122 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
(c) Prior to increasing sewage flow to greater than 10,000 gal/day the school shall install treatment to reduce effluent nitrogen levels by 50% or more of influent nitrogen levels. Such treatment shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Questions (b)(d) Water Use/Water Supply: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. Potable water for the proposed project would be supplied by the Meadowbrook Water Company. Water for irrigation of outdoor landscaping developed in Phases 1, 2, and 4, and the sports fields and the student farm and agricultural facilities to be developed in Phase 3 of the school would be supplied by the Merced Irrigation District. Water for outdoor irrigation during the late fall through early spring when the MID irrigation system is not in operation would be provided by carry-over storage in the irrigation pond or by supplemental water provided by the Meadowbrook Water Company, if needed. As proposed, the amount of water consumed by proposed school operations is unknown, and no water conservation measures have been proposed.
As of 2005, Meadowbrook was serving groundwater to more than 1,600 homes and businesses. (MIRWMP 2013) Groundwater is the only Company water source, and is currently provided by three wells (Meadowbrook 2014). Water supply from the District’s wells is estimated at 139 acre-feet per year (MIRWMP 2013). Because of the small size of the Company, the proposed SJVCS could represent a significant portion of the Company’s water demand, especially if supplemental landscape irrigation water is necessary during early spring or late fall. This increase in demand could cause the Company to construct a new well or install other source or transmission facilities that could cause environmental effects. Conversion of the project site to a developed urban use would also shift a portion of the source of water used on the site from primarily surface water historically delivered by MID to groundwater supplied by the Meadowbrook Water Company. Groundwater levels are declining in the project area, and contamination plumes originating offsite preclude the use of groundwater from beneath the site. Finally, the Meadowbrook Water Company has been ordered by the State to reduce water use within the Company’s service area by 25 percent.
As noted above, in normal water years, MID delivers 500,000 acre-feet of surface water to irrigators. In 2015, MID proposed to release no water for irrigation as a result of the ongoing drought, although the District did release 10,000 acre-feet on an emergency basis in July 2015. For 2016, MID proposes to deliver 275,000 acre-feet of surface water to be used for irrigation. (Merced Sun-Star 2016) Thus, even during the normal irrigation season from late spring through early fall, continued application of water to landscaping and the student farm could require supplemental water delivered by the Meadowbrook Water Company.
For these reasons, water use from the proposed school could adversely affect water supply. This would be a significant impact, and mitigation would be necessary. Implementation of the following measures would ensure that water would be used efficiently, and that the water conservation goals imposed on the Meadowbrook Water Company and enacted by MID would be met by the project. There would be no residual impact, and no further mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 123 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Water Conservation a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a water budget for all phases of the project to the Meadowbrook Water Company, the Merced Irrigation District, and Merced County for review and approval. The water budget shall account for all water requirements from the project including that needed for domestic purposes, landscape and athletic irrigation, and the student farm. Sources of water for each type of use shall be identified. The number and type of fire hydrants shall be identified. Upon approval of the water budget, all project Phases shall be constructed consistent with the approved budget. b. The water budget shall demonstrate a 25 percent reduction in water use from the proposed SJVCS project over business as usual conditions. c. All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Standards or with the requirements of Chapter 18.38, Landscape Standards, of the Merced County Code, whichever is stricter. d. All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the requirements of California Executive Order B-29-15, SWRCB Resolution No. 2015-0032, and CPUC Resolution W-5041 as amended through the date of issuance of building permits for Phase 1. e. All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the conservation, watering, and irrigation requirements of the Meadowbrook Water Company and the Merced Irrigation District. f. Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1e.
Question (c) Stormwater Drainage Facilities: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is comprised of fallow agricultural fields that provide a pervious surface. Construction of the proposed project would convert 51.75 acres of fallow fields to the school campus, parking areas, internal roadways, and sports facilities. Therefore, construction of the proposed school would result in an increase in impervious areas, and a concurrent increase in stormwater runoff.
As proposed, with project implementation, all stormwater would be collected in a network of storm drains and discharged into a detention basin in the northwest corner of the project site. The existing and proposed capacities of this basin are unknown, as are any stormwater treatment facilities.
For more information on this topic, including the environmental analysis and identified mitigation, see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, Question (e) of this Initial Study.
Questions (f)(g) Landfill Capacity/Solid Waste: Less-than-significant Impact. Winton Disposal/Waste Management would provide the San Joaquin Valley Christian School facility with solid waste removal services. The solid waste collection service would be subject to the normal tariffs and requirements of the service provider, and would not result in the need for any major new systems or substantial alterations to these utility systems. Solid waste removed from the project site is transported to the Highway 59 Landfill disposal site, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste needs through 2065. Because the proposed project is subject to the normal tariffs and requirements of the service provider, and because the Highway 59 Landfill disposal site has sufficient capacity to serve the project expansion, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 124 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ✓
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ✓
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ✓
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Question (a) Quality of Environment: Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above, while the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities, any potential impacts would be avoided with implementation of the State, Federal, and County Code requirements, and mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, and compliance with the policies and programs of the 2030 Merced County General Plan. Compliance with the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, State, Federal, and County standards and regulations, and 2030 Merced County General Plan policies that pertain to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities, would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level.
Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AES-1: If the project applicant or any successor in interest plans to light any of the sports fields to be constructed in Phase 3, prior to the issuance of any building permit for Phase 3, the applicant shall prepare and submit a lighting plan to Merced County for review and approval. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the County's lighting requirements including the limitation of light trespass outside of the project boundaries, and the shielding of all light fixtures to ensure that there would be no direct shine onto adjacent roadways or surrounding properties. Upon approval by the County, the applicant shall implement the lighting plan.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 125 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure AES-2: Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 of the SJVCS, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall plant a row of fast-growing trees to the west of the driveway approaching Dan Ward Road, immediately adjacent to the sound barrier wall required by Mitigation Measure NSE-1, to prevent any impact of parking lot illumination to the residence nearest to the project. The row of trees shall extend from Dan Ward Road in a northerly direction and terminate adjacent to the proposed intersection with the main parking lot, or the roundabout if Ranchero Lanes is not constructed.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to applying for final discretionary approval, the project applicant must submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application and comply with District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requirements. Requirements include on-site measures to result in the reduction of 20 percent of construction equipment
exhaust NOx; 45 percent of construction equipment exhaust PM10; 33 percent of operational NOx over 10 years; and 50 percent of operational PM10 over 10 years. If mitigation measures cannot achieve the required emission reductions, then off-site mitigation fees to be calculated during the AIA process must be paid. The applicant must pay any applicable off-site mitigation fees before issuance of the first building permit.
The project applicant would also need to demonstrate compliance with Regulation VIII
– Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions; and may be subject to additional rules, including, but not limited to Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). The project applicant will be required to implement measures of applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations as noted.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of the project, the project applicant shall consult with CDFW to determine if mitigation is necessary for the loss of approximately 51.75 acres of potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The project applicant shall submit documentation of CDFW consultation to Merced County. Should CDFW consider there to be impacts to Swainson’s hawk requiring mitigation under CDFW guidelines, CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures shall be required as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-1b.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Following consultation with CDFW, should it be determined necessary, CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures shall be required for this project and are hereby incorporated by reference: 1. Protocol Nesting Surveys of the Project Area and Surrounding Area. Prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, the project applicant shall conduct a protocol-level survey of the project area and within the surrounding area in conformance with the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley,” Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (May 31, 2000). This protocol prescribes minimum standards for survey equipment, mode of survey, angle and distance to tree, speed, visual and audible clues, distractions, notes and observations, and timing of surveys. To meet the CDFW recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawks, surveys should be conducted for a one-half-mile radius around all project activities, where accessible, and if active nesting is identified within the one-half-mile radius, consultation is required.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 126 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
a. Nesting surveys can only be performed between January 1 and July 30 and will vary depending on seasonal conditions and the actual nesting period. If the protocol survey process is started outside of this survey window but during the time when there could be nestlings or fledglings (July 30-September 15), the project applicant and qualified raptor biologist shall consult with CDFW to determine appropriate action, including modification of survey requirements based on the proposed construction period. If construction is to take place between September 15 and February 1 (non-breeding season), surveys will not be required. b. Surveys must be performed by a qualified raptor biologist. c. A written report with the pre-construction survey results must be provided to the Community and Economic Development Department and CDFW within 30 days prior to commencement of construction-related activities. The report shall include: the date of the report, authors and affiliations, contact information, introduction, methods, study location, including map, results, discussion, and literature cited. d. The project applicant must submit CNDDB forms for Swainson’s hawk occurrences and for any other listed, fully protected, or species of special concern encountered and positively identified during the surveys. www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb. If the required nesting surveys show there are no active nests within the appropriate radius as defined by the technical advisory referenced above, then no additional mitigation for active nests will be required as outlined in BIO-1b(2) below. 2. Nest Avoidance. If active nests are documented on the CNDDB database, or other environmental study, or are discovered during the protocol survey within one-half-mile radius of project activities, the project applicant must obtain CESA 2081 Management Authorization prior to the start of construction-related activities and issuance of the first building permit. CDFW pre-approved mitigation measures to avoid nest impacts during construction must include: a. No intensive new disturbances (for example, heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing activities), habitat conversions, or other project-related activities that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, should be initiated within one-half-mile (in rural areas) or one-quarter- mile (in urbanized areas) of an active nest between March 1 and September 15, or August 15 if written CESA 2081 Management Authorization obtained from CDFW prior to such disturbance. b. Nest trees shall not be removed unless there is no feasible way of avoiding it. If a nest tree must be removed, written CESA 2081 Management Authorization must be obtained from CDFW prior to tree removal. Such written authorization must specify: i. The tree removal period, which can typically be expected to be between October 1 and February 1. ii. The conditions required to offset the loss of the nest tree. c. If disturbances, habitat conversions, or other project-related activities, that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, are necessary, within the nest protection buffer zone, monitoring of the nest site by a qualified raptor biologist, funded by the project applicant, shall be required, to determine if the nest is abandoned. If the nest is abandoned, but the nestlings are still alive, the project proponent is required to fund the
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 127 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
recovery and hacking, that is the controlled release of captive reared young of the nestling. d. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine maintenance activities within one-quarter-mile of an active nest are not prohibited. 3. Loss of Foraging Habitat. Following consultation with CDFW as required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1a, if CDFW concurs that mitigation pursuant to CDFW guidelines is appropriate to compensate for the loss of foraging habitat, the project applicant shall obtain CESA 2081 Management Authorization from CDFW prior to the start of construction- related activities or issuance of the first building permit. The extent of any necessary mitigation shall be determined by CDFW. Generally, CDFW requires mitigation for foraging habitat based on the presence of active nests within 10 miles of the project. If an active nest site is identified within a certain distance of the project boundary, the project proponent ordinarily will be required by CDFW to provide off-site foraging habitat management lands at a specified Mitigation Ratio, as follows:
Distance from Project Boundary Mitigation Acreage Ratio* Within 1 mile 1.00:1** Between 1 and 5 miles 0.75:1 Between 5 and 10 miles 0.50:1 *Ratio means [acres of mitigation land] to [acres of foraging habitat impacted]. **This ratio shall be 0.5:1 if the acquired lands can be actively managed for prey production.
CDFW provides options for off-site habitat management by fee title acquisition or conservation easement acquisition with CDFW-approved management plan, and by the acquisition of comparable habitat. Mitigation credits may be pursued through a CDFW- approved mitigation bank for Swainson’s hawk impacts in Merced County. Go to: www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue. The CDFW pre-approved CEQA mitigation measures are found at “DFG Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s hawks in the Central Valley of California,” CDFG (November 8, 1994). The referenced report contains recommended assessment and management measures to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat. In summary, to mitigate impacts to a level below significance, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b requires the following: • Prior to obtaining the first building permit, the project applicant shall conduct protocol- level surveys for Swainson’s hawk (MM BIO-1b(1)). • The applicant shall obtain written CESA 2081 Management Authorization from the CDFW for nesting impacts (if active nests are documented within one-half-mile radius of project activities) and for foraging habitat impacts (if determined necessary) prior to the start of construction-related activities or issuance of the first building permit (MM BIO-1b(2)). • If construction-related activity would result in the removal of an active nest during the Swainson’s hawk breeding season, the applicant shall obtain prior written authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and to avoid impacts to actively nesting Swainson’s hawks (MM BIO-1b(3)).
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 128 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Within 14 days prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall complete a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls within appropriate seasonal buffer zone of all areas disturbed for the proposed project. The surveys will be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). If owls are identified in or near the area to be disturbed, buffer areas around the occupied burrows shall be established, inside of which no disturbance shall occur. The size of the buffer area required would vary depending on whether construction occurs during non-breeding or breeding season and the level of disturbance. If avoidance requirements cannot be met, passive relocation of owls, using one-way doors, may be implemented, but only during the non-breeding season and with CDFW approval. For each vacated burrow and its surrounding area that would be excavated or converted by project construction, alternative unoccupied natural or artificial burrows or land shall be provided outside of the construction area. Consultation with CDFW is required for mitigation recommendations if a recently occupied burrow is destroyed.
If burrowing owls occur within the project area, additional avoidance measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction: • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period from 1 February through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • If disturbing owls is unavoidable, appropriate buffer distances within Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be followed or CDFW will be consulted • Avoid direct destruction of burrows during construction. • Prior to construction, conduct a Worker Awareness Program (environmental education) to inform project workers of their responsibilities regarding sensitive biological resources and increase the on-site worker’s commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows prior to inspection. • Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). • Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: To reduce project-related impacts to active bird nests and to reduce the potential for construction activities to interrupt breeding and rearing behaviors of birds, the following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities for each Phase of the project:
• No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction for any Phase, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of nesting birds if ground clearing or construction activities will be initiated during the breeding season (February 2 through September 14). The proposed area of construction and potential nesting areas within 0.5 miles of the construction area shall be surveyed. Surveys will be
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 129 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
performed by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. • Construction shall not occur within a 500-foot buffer surrounding nests of raptors (including burrowing owls) or a 250-foot buffer surrounding nests of migratory birds. • If construction within these buffer areas is required, or if nests must be removed to allow continuation of construction, prior approval must be obtained from the CDFW. • No restrictions are required for avian species for construction activities that occur during the non-breeding season (September 15 to February 1) or after the young have fledged.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To minimize potential impacts to both the San Joaquin Kit Fox and American badger, prior to any construction activities within the project site, the project applicant shall follow the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). The measures that are listed below have been excerpted from those guidelines and would protect both San Joaquin Kit fox and American badgers. These surveys would also detect raptor and migratory songbirds activity in the area. 1. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction of any Phase, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist over all areas of ground disturbance for construction to determine presence/absence of this species in accordance with USFWS recommendations. If a suitable den (occupied or unoccupied) is observed by the surveying biologist or worker, a 200-foot buffer will be established around the den. Prior to working within the buffer, the USFWS will be contacted for guidance. 2. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However, if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited. 3. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of San Joaquin kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured San Joaquin kit fox is discovered, USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted as noted under Measure 11 referenced below. 4. San Joaquin kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a San Joaquin kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 130 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
5. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction site. 6. No firearms shall be allowed on the project area. 7. If any San Joaquin kit fox or American badger, or their sign, are detected on site during the preconstruction survey, dogs and cats shall be kept off the area to prevent harassment, mortality of San Joaquin kit foxes or American badgers, and/or destruction of their dens. 8. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of San Joaquin kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox. 9. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped San Joaquin kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service. 10. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS should be contacted for guidance. 11. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFW contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist at (530) 934-9309. The USFWS should be contacted at the numbers below. 12. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact is Mr. Paul Hoffman at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309. 13. New sightings of San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the CNDDB. A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the USFWS at the address below. 14. Any project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605, Sacramento, California, 95825-1846, (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 131 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The project applicant and construction contractor shall implement a plan to address the discovery of unanticipated buried cultural or paleontological resources. If buried cultural resources such as chipped or ground stone, midden deposits, historic debris, building foundations, human bone, or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop responsible treatment measures in consultation with Merced County and other appropriate agencies.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The project applicant and construction contractor shall implement a plan to address discovery of human remains. If remains of Native American origin are discovered during proposed project construction, it shall be necessary to comply with state laws concerning the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: • The County coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and • If the remains are of Native American origin:
√ The most likely descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC 5097.98; or √ The NAHC has been unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from project operations, the project applicant for the proposed project, as well as all successors in interest, shall implement the following measures. Alternate measures may be used, as long as the same reduction of 159.7
metric tons CO2e is achieved. a. As proposed by the project applicant, the project would be built to exceed Title 24 efficiencies by at least 15 percent. A compliance report demonstrating the 15 percent reduction by project design shall be submitted to the County prior to issuance of building permits, as required by Title 24. This performance standard can be met with a combination of measures to reduce energy use for heating, cooling, water heating and ventilation. The project applicant must provide third-party verification of energy savings. Consistent with Merced County General Plan Policy AQ-1.1, trees planted along the south and west side of the buildings or the use of reflective materials to reduce the heat island effect can contribute to the overall reduction in energy use.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 132 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
b. The proposed project shall include the use of energy efficient interior exterior lighting fixtures. The project applicant shall achieve a 20 percent reduction compared to standard conditions. Scaled by lumens, the project applicant may take the following credit for efficiency: • 16% for metal halide post top lights • 35% for metal halide cobrahead or cutoff lights • 40% for high pressure sodium cutoff lights • A calculated percentage reduction for LED lights if supported by engineering data submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department for review and approval c. The applicant shall provide evidence that the project, as designed, would achieve a 20 percent reduction in energy use from lighting compared to standard conditions. d. The project applicant shall ensure that energy efficient appliances (Energy Star rated) are installed in the school. e. The project applicant shall prepare a Water Conservation Strategy that would result in 25 percent reduction in indoor and outdoor water use. Project plans shall include low-flow faucets, toilets, and showers. Drip or spray irrigation shall be required. (See Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.) The project applicant can combine a variety of water reduction measures to meet the 25 percent reduction. The project applicant shall provide evidence that the project design would result in a 25 percent reduction in water consumption compared to standard conditions. f. Existing state law requires 50 percent diversion for recycling from the waste stream. The project applicant shall institute a recycling and/or composting program to achieve a reduction of waste disposed by 50 percent. The project applicant shall provide detailed evidence supporting the amount of waste reduced or diverted as a result of the program. g. Implement a School Pool or a School Bus Program. The project applicant will create a ridesharing program for school children and demonstrate that 10 percent of students participate in the program. A SchoolPool helps match parents to transport students to private schools.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The applicant shall submit permit registration documents for the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ to the SWRCB, and comply with all requirements of the permit. The annual fees are based on total disturbed area of the construction project in acres. A Legally Responsible Person (LRP) shall electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRD) prior to building permit issuance in the Stormwater Multi- Application Report Tracking System. PRDs consist of the Notice of Intent, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the SWPPP, a signed certification statement by the LRP, and the first annual fee. All requirements of the site specific SWPPP shall be included in construction documents for the project, and implemented for the duration of construction, including post-construction stabilization.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the initiation of construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project, the applicant shall develop an engineered stormwater drainage system to meet the collection, capacity, and quality requirements, and Low Impact Development requirements and Best Management Practices set forth in Merced County regulations (Merced County Code §9.53, Regulation of Stormwater). The Plan shall be submitted to Merced County for review and
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 133 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
approval, and facilities identified in the approved plan will be constructed as required to serve each of the three project phases.
Mitigation Measure NSE-1: To reduce noise generated by parking lot activities and on-site circulation to a comply with applicable Merced County General Plan noise standards, the construction of a solid noise barrier at the location shown on Figure 9 would be required. The analysis of the barrier’s effectiveness concludes that a 6-foot tall masonry or other similar material barrier at that location would be adequate to reduce on-site circulation noise levels to
below the County’s 55 dB L50 noise level standard. This barrier may be installed in two segments: 1) Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 of the SJVCS project as depicted on Figure 3 of this Initial Study, the first phase of the barrier shall be constructed as shown on Figure 9 within the area delineated as Phases 1 and 2 on Figure 3; and, 2) Prior to occupancy of Phase 3, if Ranchero Lane has not been extended through the project site, the barrier shall be completed as depicted on Figure 9.
Mitigation Measure TRF-1: Opening Day Improvements
Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the SJVCS, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall implement the following measures.
(c) Physical Improvements. Install standard frontage improvements along Dan Ward Road. (d) School Bell Schedule. Avoid beginning and ending the school day at the times when other local schools begin or end. (c) Traffic Management. The school shall implement an internal traffic flow pattern that limits inbound traffic only to the Cowden Avenue driveway and outbound traffic only to the Ranchero Lane driveway.
Mitigation Measure TRF-2: Phase 2 Improvements Upon the initiation of Phase 2 development or construction, the applicants shall submit bi- annual attendance reports to the County of Merced Department of Public Works, Roads Division and the Community and Economic Development Department at the commencement of the Spring Semester and Fall Semester sessions. The project applicant or any successor in interest shall implement the following measures in addition to continuing Mitigation Measures TRF-1b and TRF-1c. (a) Physical Improvements. The following improvements shall be constructed: 4. If school attendance meets or exceeds 425 students, install a Traffic Signal at the Franklin Road/Dan Ward Road intersection. 5. If school attendance meets or exceeds 585 students, install a Traffic Signal at the Dan Ward Road/Ranchero Lane intersection. 6. If school attendance meets or exceeds 475 students, the applicant shall pay their proportionate share of the installation of a Traffic Signal at the Dan Ward Road/Beachwood Drive intersection that is coordinated with the Santa Fe Drive signal and the BNSF railroad crossing.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 134 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
(b) Reimbursement. For the identified improvement at the Dan Ward Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection, if no fee program is in place and the improvement cited above is constructed by the applicant or any successor, the applicant or successor may request that the County enter into a reimbursement agreement or agreements to refund any improvement costs beyond the applicant’s or successor’s fair share of each improvement. Approval of a reimbursement agreement by the County shall not be unreasonably withheld. Mitigation Measure TRF-3: Cumulative Year Improvements The following measures shall be implemented when enrollment reaches 800 students, or by the year 2035, whichever occurs soonest after project approval.
(a) Continue implementing Mitigation Measures TRF-1b and TRF-1c. (b) If not previously constructed and the student population triggers cited in Mitigation Measure TRF-2 have been met or exceeded, pay adopted traffic mitigation fees or construct the traffic controls set forth in the Measure. (c) Physical Improvements. If these improvements have not previously been constructed by others, or are not programmed improvements in fee programs existing when enrollment reaches 800 students or the year 2035 that would result in the construction of the identified improvements, install an overlap phase at the Santa Fe Drive / Beachwood Drive signal for the NB right turn on Beachwood Drive. (d) Reimbursement. For the identified improvement at the Dan Ward Road/Santa Fe Drive intersection, if no fee program is in place and the improvement cited above is constructed by the applicant or any successor, the applicant or successor may request that the County enter into a reimbursement agreement or agreements to refund any improvement costs beyond the applicant’s or successor’s fair share of the improvement. Approval of a reimbursement agreement by the County shall not be unreasonably withheld. Mitigation Measure TRF-4: Implement All Traffic Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures TRF-1 through TRF-3.
Mitigation Measure TRF-5: Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the project applicant or successor in interest shall establish a class III bike route in both directions along the section of Dan Ward Road between Beachwood Drive and Franklin Road. The features necessary to identify the bike route shall consist of signs and “sharrow” pavement markings.
Mitigation Measure TRF-6: a) Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, install an improved pedestrian crossing with proactive warning devices at the Ranchero Lane/Dan Ward intersection
b) Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 – construct a sidewalk on the south side of Dan Ward Road from the end of the existing sidewalk east of Cowden Avenue to Elm Avenue; construct an improved pedestrian crossing with proactive warning devices at the Cowden Avenue/Dan Ward intersection
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 135 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: OWTS Phase 1 Requirements (a) If FCWD collection and treatment capacity is available to serve Phase 1 of the SJVCS project that is equal to the design capacity of any planned OWTS or any multiple of planned OWTS facilities, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall connect to the community system prior to occupancy to the extent defined above. (b) If wastewater collection and treatment capacity is not available or is insufficient to serve the entire demand for wastewater services at buildout of Phase 1, the applicant shall design and submit a plan for a single OWTS or multiple OWTS to the Merced County DEH for review and approval. The OWTS shall be installed as approved by DEH prior to the occupancy of Phase 1. The OWTS and supporting documentation shall meet the following standards: 1. The initial on-site septic system, under the jurisdiction of Merced County Division of Environmental Health (MCDEH), shall be designed and installed to accommodate daily flow of no more than 10,000 gal/day (school phase 1). MCDEH will not approve a design or installation of a system that won’t be used until under Regional Board jurisdiction. 2. The designing engineer shall provide sewage flow and distribution calculations to MCDEH. 3. The Merced County On-Site Septic System Standards require installation of a standard trench (3’ x 3’ with 18” of rock below the pipe). This design enhances aerobic treatment in the trench and maximizes evaporation. The USDA Soil Conservation Service soil survey shows the soil in that area as AgA, with cemented hardpan somewhere between 3.5 and 5 feet and probably moderate permeability in the soil below the hardpan. Under these soil conditions, MCDEH will allow a deeper trench with a design that still enhances aerobic treatment in the trench and encourages evaporation. MCDEH will recognize absorption only in the sidewalls below the hardpan, with a maximum of 36” below the bottom of the hardpan. All hardpan from the trench shall be removed. The top of the perforated pipe shall be no deeper than 18” bgs and the amount of soil over the trench shall be no deeper than 14”. 4. A percolation test, per Merced County On-Site Septic System Standards, shall be performed by a qualified person at each of the proposed leachfield locations at a depth of 12" below the bottom of the hardpan. The results shall be provided to MCDEH and shall be used to calculate the application rate.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Wastewater Treatment Post-Phase 1 Prior to occupancy of Phase 2 or any succeeding phase, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall: (a) If and when Franklin County Water District is willing to provide a can-and-will-serve letter, the school shall connect to the District within one year. The Regional Water Quality Control Board supports this action and would require it under Board jurisdiction. Connection to the District may require part of the school property to be annexed into the District. (b) Prior to increasing sewage flow to greater than 10,000 gal/day the school shall either divert all sewage flow to the Franklin County Water District or the on-site septic system shall be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 136 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
(c) Prior to increasing sewage flow to greater than 10,000 gal/day the school shall install treatment to reduce effluent nitrogen levels by 50% or more of influent nitrogen levels. Such treatment shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Water Conservation (a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a water budget for all phases of the project to the Meadowbrook Water Company, the Merced Irrigation District, and Merced County for review and approval. The water budget shall account for all water requirements from the project including that needed for domestic purposes, landscape and athletic irrigation, and the student farm. Sources of water for each type of use shall be identified. The number and type of fire hydrants shall be identified. Upon approval of the water budget, all project Phases shall be constructed consistent with the approved budget. (b) The water budget shall demonstrate a 25 percent reduction in water use from the proposed SJVCS project over business as usual conditions. (c) All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Standards or with the requirements of Chapter 18.38, Landscape Standards, of the Merced County Code, whichever is stricter. (d) All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the requirements of California Executive Order B-29-15, SWRCB Resolution No. 2015-0032, and CPUC Resolution W-5041 as amended through the date of issuance of building permits for Phase 1. (e) All phases of the SJVCS project shall comply with the conservation, watering, and irrigation requirements of the Meadowbrook Water Company and the Merced Irrigation District. (f) Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1e.
In addition to the Mitigation Measures necessary to reduce or avoid environmental effects as cited above, this Initial Study also recommends conditions of approval that could be required by the County. These recommended conditions would be necessary to avoid or reduce environmental hazards to which the project could be exposed.
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to purchase of APN 057-050-059, or prior to the initiation of any demolition or construction, the project applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to complete a visual assessment of the area of the mobile home, barn, and other outbuildings on APN 057-050-059 to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials in any drums, canisters, or tanks present in the area, and the potential for hazardous materials to be in the soil in the area. To determine the presence or absence of an underground storage tank, the licensed professional or firm shall also complete a a limited geophysical survey in the southwestern portion of subject site parcel 057-050-059 to assess the presence or absence of subsurface metallic anomalies characteristic of underground storage tanks. Should any evidence of hazardous materials be identified, the licensed professional or firm shall consult with the Merced County Division of Environmental Health (DEH) and appropriate state or federal regulatory agencies to develop a plan to remediate the identified materials, and the plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of DEH or other appropriate agency prior to the initiation of construction on the affected area of the SJVCS school site.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 137 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to the initiation of construction within any portion of the SJVCS project site, the applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to investigate the presence of any groundwater wells or septic systems. Should any wells or septic systems be identified, the well or septic system shall be properly drained and/or decommissioned in accordance with the requirements of the Merced County Well Ordinance (Section 9.28.060F of the Merced County Code) and the requirements for septic system abandonment set forth in Merced County’s Minimum Design Standards – Operation and Maintenance Site Evaluation for On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems.
Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to the initiation of the demolition of any structure within any portion of the SJVCS project site, the applicant or any successor in interest shall retain a licensed professional or firm to complete a comprehensive asbestos and lead based paint survey of all buildings to be demolished or significant renovated to determine if asbestos- containing materials and and lead based paint are present. If such materials are identified and need to be disturbed, repaired, or removed, a licensed abatement contractor should be retained to properly remove and dispose of all materials containing asbestos or lead based paint. Additionally, the applicants shall comply with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 3050 and 4002.
Question (b) Cumulative Impacts: Less-than-significant Impact. While the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with increased development in the region, these impacts have previously been evaluated by the County and considered in development of the County’s 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan EIR comprehensively evaluated the potential environmental effects, including the potential countywide and cumulative impacts, of implementing the 2030 General Plan. As discussed in the preceding discussion of tiering, the General Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 as though fully set forth herein.
As discussed in this Initial Study, the SJV Christian School Project has the potential to result in impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities. As set forth in the appropriate topical discussions of this Initial Study, effects to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities, are all subject to the proposed mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, State, Federal, and County standards and regulations, and 2030 Merced County General Plan policies and programs designed to avoid, reduce, or mitigate such effects.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction and operation of a Pre- Kindergarten through 12th grade private school for up to 800 students on the 53.75 acre project site. As viewed within the context of the overall growth and development in the County as outlined in the 2030 Merced County General Plan, the potential impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Additionally, after mitigation, the project has been determined not to have significant project level or cumulative level effects for any environmental issue. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and would result in a less- than-significant impact when viewed in connection to the effects of past and probable future projects.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 138 April 2016 Environmental Analysis
Question (c) Human Beings: Less-than-significant Impact. As demonstrated in the detailed evaluation contained in this Initial Study, because of existing site conditions, County standards, 2030 General Plan programs and policies, and the regulation of potential environmental impacts by other agencies, in addition to mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, the proposed SJV Christian School Project would not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 139 April 2016 App licant Ageewert to Mibgation Measzrts
5. Aprr,rcaxr AcREEMENT To MrrrcarroN MEASURES
By the srgnature below, the project applicant 2[trees to implement and incolporate the Mitigation Measures identified in this Initial Study as oudined above in Section XVIII, Mandatary Findings of
j S ignffi cana, as pafi o f *y' San J o aq# V dlyy Christian School Pro ect.
Initial StuQ - San Joaquin Valkjt Chnstian School Pruject Page /40 A?ril 2016 List of Preparers
6. PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY
Lead Agency Merced County Community and Economic Development Department 2222 M Street Merced, CA 95340 (209) 385-7654
Sandy Saechao, Planner I
Environmental Consultant Environmental Planning Partners, Inc. P. O. Box 627 7281 Lone Pine Drive, Suite D-203 Sloughhouse, California 95683 (916) 354-1620
Robert D. Klousner – President, Principal in Charge Raadha Jacobstein – Professional Planner Mary Wilson - Assistant Planner Dale Nutley – Graphic Artist Mary Wilson – Document Preparation
Technical Consultants Bollard Acoustical Consulting, Inc. (Noise Assessment) Paul Bollard, President
Kamansky's Ecological Consulting (Biological Resources) Robert Kamansky, Principal
KD Anderson and Associates, Inc. (Traffic Impact Analysis) Ken Anderson, Principal
Napton Consulting Services (Cultural Resources) L. Kyle Napton, Ph.D., Principal
Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 141 April 2016 Literature Cited
7. LITERATURE CITED
The following documents were referred to as information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the web addresses shown after the listing. All documents without an Internet address are available at the County of Merced, Community and Economic Development Department 2222 ‘M’ Street, Merced, California 95340.
American Lung Association of California (ALA California), 2011. Global Warming: Impacts to Public Health and Air Quality. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on February 26, 2015 at: < http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/assets/pdfs/advocacy/global-warming- impacts-public.pdf >
Bollard Acoustical Consulting, Inc., 2015. Environmental Noise Assessment, San Joaquin Valley Christian School, Merced County, California. December 2, 2015.
California Air Resources Board, 2015. Air Quality Trend Summaries. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on October 14, 2015 at
_____, 2015. Area Designations. Page reviewed January 9, 2015. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on November 12, 2015 at
_____, 2014a. Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012. Last reviewed on December 22, 2014. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on February 26, 2015 at
_____, 2014b. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework. May 2014. Accessed on March 9, 2015 at < http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>
California, State of. Department of Conservation (DOC), 2015. California Geological Survey.. 2015. Accessed by Mary Wilson on November 16, 2015 at _____, 2010. Division of Land Resources Protection. Farmland Mapping Program (FMMP). Merced County Important Farmland 2010. County PDF maps, Accessed November 20, 2015 by Mary Wilson at < ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/mer14_no.pdf>. Map published August 2015. California, State of. Department of Finance (DOF), 2014. Table E2 — California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2010 - 2014. December 2014. Revised July 1, 2013 and Preliminary July 1, 2014. Accessed on November 18, 2015 at: California, State of. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2007. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP), Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. September 21, 2007. Accessed on November 30, 2015 by Mary Wilson at: Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian Valley School Project Page 142 April 2016 Literature Cited California, State of. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2015. Find Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities. Accessed by Mary Wilson on November 30, 2015 at California, State of. 2011. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. “Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways.” Updated September 6, 2011. Accessed on November 20, 2015 by Mary Wilson at < http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm> California, State of. Department of Water Resources (DWR); 2015. Groundwater Levels for Well 373466N1205499W001. Last modified on September 18, 2014. Accessed November 16, 2015 at http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/hydrographs/brr_hydro.cfm?CFG RIDKEY=10044 California, State of. Employment Development Department (EDD), 2016. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP, January 2016 – Preliminary; Merced County. March 4, 2016. California, State of, Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 2015. CPUC Orders Water Companies to Implement 25 Percent Conservation Measures in Response to Drought, Resolution W-5041. May 7, 2015. California, State of, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2015. Resolution No. 2015- 0032 to Adopt an Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation. May 5, 2015. Caltrans. See California, State of. Department of Transportation. CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act, as amended 2009. CEQA Guidelines, as amended December 30, 2009. DOF. See California, State of. Department of Finance. DTSC. See California, State of. Department of Toxic Substances Control. EDD. See California, State of. Employment Development Department. FIRM. See United States, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Google Earth Pro, 2015a. Aerial Image of the project site dated March 21, 2015. Consulted October 13, 2015. _____, 2015b. Historic Air Photograph Series of the Project Site and Area, September 15, 1998 to March 21, 2015. Consulted October 13, 2015. Guerrero, Brian. 2015. Planner III, Merced County, personal communication in August, 2015 with Raadha Jacobstein, Planning Partners, regarding Native American Consultation contacts. Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 143 April 2016 Literature Cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. Accessed on March 6, 2015 at < http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/> _____. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 996. Accessed on March 6, 2015 at Kamansky's Ecological Consulting, 2015. Reconnaissance-Level Biological Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Sensitive and Listed Species for the Christian Valley School Expansion Project, Merced County, California. September 30, 2015. KD Anderson and Associates, Inc., 2015. Traffic Impact Analysis for SJVCSA School Project, Franklin-Beachwood Area, Merced County, CA. November 25, 2015. Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Agricultural Property, 2738 Dan Ward Road, APNs 057-050-019, -020, -021 and -059, and 057-015-002 and -018, Merced, California 95348. March 31, 2014. Luna, Joseph. 2015. PG&E Building Services, Merced. Personal communication with Mary Wilson of Planning Partners on December 9, 2015 regarding the provision of gas and electric services to the proposed project site. Meadowbrook Water Company, 2015. Can and Will Serve Letter to project applicant dated June 25, 2015. _____, 2015a. Water Conservation. Accessed at http://mbwaterco.com/?page_id=80 on December 11, 2015. _____, 2015b. Watering Hours. Accessed at http://mbwaterco.com/?page_id=112 on December 11, 2015. _____, 2014. 2013 Consumer Confidence Report; January 6, 2014. Merced, County of, 2015. Community and Economic Development Department. Project application and associated files. _____. 2015a. Web Mapping Service. Map viewer accessed on November 20, 2015 at _____. 2013. Merced County 2030 General Plan. Adopted December 10, 2013. Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 144 April 2016 Literature Cited _____. 2013a. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Section 9.4, Recreation and Cultural Resources. December 10. 2013. _____. 2013b. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Section 10.2, Geological and Seismic, Figure 10-2: Seismic Damage Zones within Merced County. December 10, 2013. _____, 2013c. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Section 10.2, Geological and Seismic, page 10-6, Ground Failure and Liquefaction. December 10, 2013. _____, 2013d. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Chapter 10, Safety, Section 10.4 Fire Hazards, Figures 10-16, State Responsibility Areas in Merced County, and 10-17, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Merced County. December 10, 2013. _____. 2013e. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Chapter 8, Natural Resources, Section 8.2 Water Resources. December 10, 2013. _____. 2013f. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Chapter 8, Natural Resources, Figure 8-5, Groundwater Depths in Merced County. December 10, 2013. _____. 2013g. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report, Chapter 8, Natural Resources, Figure 8-6, Sensitivity of Merced County Groundwater to Contamination. December 10, 2013. _____, 2013h. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report. Section 8.3 Energy/Mineral Resources, Figure 8-10, Merced County Aggregate Resources. December 2013. _____, 2013i. 2030 Merced County General Plan Background Report. Section 11.2, Noise - Existing Noise Environment, page 11-7. December 2013. _____, 2000. County of Merced Rules of Procedure to Implement the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. Adopted July 25, 2000. Revised September 22, 2009. _____. 1995. Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health; 1995 Minimum Design Standards – Operation and Maintenance Site Evaluation for On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems. Merced County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) 2012a. Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Containing the Individual Compatibility Plans for Castle Airport, Gustine Municipal Airport, Los Banos Municipal Airport, Merced Regional Airport, and Turlock Municipal Airport. June 21, 2012. _____, 2012b. Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Containing the Individual Compatibility Plans for Castle Airport, Gustine Municipal Airport, Los Banos Municipal Airport, Merced Regional Airport, and Turlock Municipal Airport, Exhibit CAS 4, Compatibility Factors Map, Castle Airport. June 21, 2012. Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), 2007. Final Report, County of Merced, Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review. May 24, 2007. Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 145 April 2016 Literature Cited Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority, 2015. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, September 2015. Merced Irrigation District (MID), 2016a. Will Serve letter to provide agricultural water service to the proposed campus. March 9, 2016. _____. 2016b. Will Serve letter to provide electrical service to the proposed campus. March 3, 2016. Merced Irrigation District, Merced County, City of Merced (MIRWMP), 2013. Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan; August 2013. Merced Sun-Star, 2016. Merced Irrigation District Board to vote on water for farmers. March 27, 2016. Napton, Lew K, Ph.D. 2015. Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed San Joaquin Christian School Project, 55 Acres in Merced County, California. May 2015. NASA. See United States, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Northstar Engineering Group, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Septic System Layout, November 5, 2015. NRCS. See United States, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Pidwirny, M. 2006. The Carbon Cycle: Fundamentals of Physical Geography. 2nd Edition. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on March 9, 2015 at < http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html> Planning Partners. 2015. Site Visit. Conducted on April 21, 2015 by Robert Klousner and Mary Wilson (Planning Partners) and on November 18, 2015 by Robert Klousner. Roberts, Tasha. 2015. Winton Disposal/Waste Management. Personal communication with Mary Wilson of Planning Partners on December 9, 2015 regarding the provision of solid waste disposal services to the project site. Sandy Saechao, Merced County Community and Economic Development Department, 2015. Personal communications with Robert D. Klousner regarding Merced County ALUC review of the proposed SJVCS project. November-December 2015. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2015. “Project: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP15-003. District CEQA Reference No: 20150111.” Letter from SJVAPCD in response to Preliminary Application Review request from the County. February 23, 2015. _____, 2015a. “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.” March 19, 2015. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on October 15, 2015 at Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 146 April 2016 Literature Cited _____, 2012. Small Project Analysis Level. Revised June 2012. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on November 12, 2015 at San Joaquin Valley Christian School Association (SJVCSA) 2016. Conditional Use Permit application submitted to Merced County on February 11, 2015 as modified; Operational Statement submitted on August 11, 2015 as modified through March 31, 2016; architectural plans submitted on November 16, 2015; engineering plans submitted on November 16, 2015 as modified through March 31, 2016. United States, Department of Agriculture, 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey. Accessed by Mary Wilson on November 16, 2015, at _____, 2010. Forest Service. New Data Highlights Role of Forests in Fight Against Climate Change. (Release No. 0532.10). October 15, 2010. Accessed on March 9, 2015 at United States, Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. Updated December October 1, 2015. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on November 12, 2015 at _____, 2015b. Air Emission Sources. Particulate Matter. Data from 2011 National Emissions Inventory. Updated November 12, 2015. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on November 12, 2015 at _____. 2015c. Envirofacts website database. Accessed on November 30, 2015 at: _____. 2015d. Superfund National Priorities List. Cleanup Sites in California. Last updated on October 13, 2015. Accessed on November 30, 2015 at: < http://www3.epa.gov/region9/cleanup/california.html#s> _____, 2014. Climate Change Science. Last updated on March 18, 2014. Accessed on March 9, 2015 at United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, November 25, 2015. Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 147 April 2016 Literature Cited United States, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2015. Research News, NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record. NASA Headquarters release No. 15-010. January 16, 2015. Accessed by Raadha Jacobstein on November 16, 2015 at < http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/> Initial Study – San Joaquin Valley Christian School Project Page 148 April 2016 This page intentionally left blank.