Response to Comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated

Lakeview Properties SubdivisionMajor Subdivision Application No. MAS04-014

Response to Comments on theInitial Study /

Mitigated Negative Declaration

November 24, 2009

Prepared by theMerced County Department of Planning & Community Development

Merced County 1 Major Subdivision No. 04014 – Lakeview Properties Subdivision November 2009 Response to Comments

PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public disclosure in an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) of all project environmental effects and encourages public participation throughout the Negative Declaration process. As stated in CEQA Guidelines §15200, the purposes of public review of environmental documents are:

(a) sharing expertise; (b) disclosing agency analyses; (c) checking for accuracy; (d) detecting omissions; (e) discovering public concerns; and, (f) soliciting counter-proposals.

CEQA Guidelines §15201 states that “(p)ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.” A public review period of no less than 20 days is required for an IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines §15073(a). When a proposed IS/MND is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period shall be at least 30 days. In this case, a review period extending from May 13, 2009 to June 15, 2009 was established.

Merced County (County) is the lead agency for this project (i.e., the agency that has primary discretionary approval authority over portions of the project) and will certify the IS/MND during project consideration. The Army Corps of Engineers is a responsible agency (i.e., agencies that have more limited discretionary approval authority than the lead agency) and will use the information contained in this IS/MND in their environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and consideration of a Section 404 permit for the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

During circulation of the IS/MND from May 13, 2009 to June 15, 2009, the County received eleven comments on the IS/MND. For every written comment received from the public, agencies, and organizations, the County has provided a written response. At the June 10, 2009 meeting of the Snelling Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), the proposed project was reviewed with Merced County Planning and Community Development staff present. All environmental issues raised at the MAC meeting are addressed in the submitted comments and response to comments. The comments and response to comments are included in the following pages. A list of commentors is provided below.

For comments that advocate that the County take a certain action, or where the comment has stated the belief or opinion of the author, the response to comment notes that Merced County will consider the views of the commentor in the County’s deliberation of the Lakeview Properties Subdivision project. No other response to such a comment is provided. For comments received at the advisory hearing, only those comments related to the IS/MND or the environmental analysis are considered for response. Comments regarding the merits of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project are set forth in the minutes of the meeting, but are not the subject of the environmental process. This is not to diminish the importance of such comments, but rather to ensure that the substance of the comment is debated and considered by Merced County decision-makers and not the authors of the IS/MND.

Major Subdivision No. 04014 – Lakeview Properties Subdivision 2 Merced County Response to Comments November 2009

COMMENTOR COMMENT IDENTIFICATION

Federal Agency Comments

None received

State Agency Comments

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A Local and Regional Agency Comments

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) B Snelling Municipal Advisory Council C

Publi c Uti l i ty and Servi ce Provider Comments

Merced Irrigation District (MID) D Snelling Community Services District (SCSD) E

Citizen / Non-governmental Organizat ions Comments

Merced County Farm Bureau (MCFB) F Jim Arsenio G Donna and Steve Martinez (via email) H Susan Hunter (via email) I Ron Lorenz (via email) J Robert Ryan Jr. K


Letter A


Letter A, page 2

A-1


Response to Letter A Commentor California Department of Transportation; John Gedney, Caltrans – D10,

Metropolitan Planning May 8, 2009 A-1 The comment states that the project would contribute incremental traffic impacts to the

State Highway System, particularly around the intersection of Merced Falls Road and State Route 59. The comment states that Merced County should ensure the project proponent contribute a ‘fair share’ mitigation fee in addition to existing mitigation in the IS/MND.

Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, of the IS/MND evaluates potential impacts due to transportation and circulation from the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project. Impact XVIg evaluates impacts to roadways as a result of the project. As stated in the IS/MND:

The Merced County Department of Public Works, Roads Division generally requires roadway improvements with project implementation to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, including dedication of right-of-way and public utilities easements. While these are not necessary to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant, these will be added as conditions of approval to lessen those adverse impacts that may affect roads and streets.

The IS/MND lists 11 measures to meet requirements. Further, as suggested by the comment letter, the project would be subject to the current Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) pursuant to Merced County Code Chapter 5.68 and established by Ordinance No. 1749. The RTIF would be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit, and may be paid in up to five equal annual installments that shall include interest subject to the approval of the County (Merced County Code 5.68.100). The project RTIF would help fund improvements to project area roadways. Contribution to the RTIF shall be included in the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project.

As described above, the required roadway improvement measures are not necessary to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(c)(3), recirculation is not required if “[m]easures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.” No additional changes would be necessary.


Letter B

B-1

B-2

B-3

EE/1S/2889 L6:24 ?m97?617LH FIERf,ED f,O. FLANHIHfi PAGE 1- B

ru $an fnaquin Ualley*vffi

ilR F0u"uilnH [[t{TRtlt ul$TRlsTgl;rF-ailmrF

May 2CI, 20ff9

James l-folland*ounty nf MercedPlanning and Camrnunity Feveloprnent2?7.3.

t'iM'' $treetMer*ed, *A 9ffi4n

Frsiec* Lskeview FrsFerties $ubdivieion i$ll|ilHU

tri*trict Referencs Hol *00687{6

Dear Mr. Halland;

The $an Joaquin Valley Unified Air Follution Control Oistrict (Distrist) has reviewed theproject referenced above and finds.

1. The projecf is expected to have no signfficant adverge impact on air quality.

2. The proposed project is not subject to District Rule 9510 (fndirect $ource Review).

3. The proposed prqiect may be $ubrect to the following Disfflct rules: Regulation Vlll,(Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), RulE 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (ArchitecturalCoatings), and Rule 464{ (Cutback,'Slow CurE, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving andMainterrance Oparations). ln the event an existing building will be renovated,partially demolished or removed, the proiect rnay be subject to District Rule 4002(National Emission $tandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

The above liet of rules is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. To identiff other Di$trictrulee or regulationa that apply to this project or to obtain information about Dietrictpermit requirementE, the appllcant is strongly encouraged to contacf the Distriet'e $mallBueineos Aesistance Office at (5S9) ?30-.588S. Current District rules can be foundon line at: www. valhyair. org/ruleel1 ruleslist. htm.

Sry;d $rdrudinExe r ulive D i re rtsrlAi r Psll uti on Corrtrq I Offic e r

ffi

$I,.rilheril R,*gtan

*flt:f; firrt*rFfls + i*/ay

f'-'1,1C r:*t#, [A fl $3t{i'$? 1 S'fr;t: i3fl?l l!ii;.fi/+fii] FAI: i;0Sl 5ST-S4?5

{l+:nu*l liCIgiuri ifr4$r* titiisqli 4!lf] f , FgTs.r'thurg $vgnl,rrl

Frssdr. llA tS??$,.ii744'l"nl: f lb$i ?-t$-$''lrjil FsX: tIr$91 /Sn"{iil61

$,f{f,ll"j.u $ i I r:.r, g i r-. nr*

It$ar,i lf r;r* i't*t irlr

;": !,t'3; l: if ;: lit' r il il U tt

5 n 1t ";' gi i rrirJ, rJri S33IIC,*??.5'lq.;:

{8si; T*3" 3ii{}tr FIrri is{ri I ;}se,. '-r$8$

F,itfid en ra6lalq$ pppqr


Letter B, page 2

E6/1$/?f igg LE: ?4 ?Eg??61.71H

t

.

t"..

l}fE ffsffsnd

Sfsft$sf Fsfsr$ns* Ius- !0ssgf tF

lf ysu haue ally que$tisns

{$s$} 230-sfi4$.

Sincersly,

$gvs Wf,rnftr

F4ERf;EN frN, FLAI'IhIIHG FAfiE 1- g

rsquire further infsnnati*n, pl!f,$.* fiall Dnrs Grigg$,,ntor

i**s

Ar"naudPerrnit $

SW: dg

Sc: File

anager


Response to Letter B Commentor San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) May 20, 2009 B-1 The comment states that the project is expected to have no significant adverse impact on air

quality.

Comment noted. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

B-2 The comment states that the project is not subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).


B-3 This comments provides further information on the various rules and regulations that may apply to the proposed project.

Section III, Air Quality, of the IS/MND evaluates potential impacts to air quality from the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project. To minimize impacts due to violation of an air quality standard, Mitigation Measure 2 requires compliance with SJVAPCD regulations. For clarification to the record, Mitigation Measure 2: Comply with SJVAPCD Requirements and Recommendations, shall be amended to include the following:

Mitigation Measure 2: Comply with SJVAPCD Requirements and Recommendations During project construction, the project applicant and contractors shall comply with the following measures. Additionally, a note shall appear on the final subdivision map notifying purchasers of individual lots of applicable rules as set forth below, and as they might be amended, of the duty to comply with the requirements of this mitigation measure and the regulations of the SJVAPCD. A. Comply with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII Dust Suppression Measures

(described above); Rule 8021, preparation of a Dust Control Plan and; Rule 3135, Dust Control Plan Fee.

B. Comply with SJVAPCD’s Rules 4901 and 4902 regarding wood burning devices and natural gas-fired water heaters.


C. Comply with SJVAPCD’s additional measures 1 through 6 as follows to further reduce ozone precursors. The project applicant shall implement the following:

1. Energy efficient design including automated control systems for heating/air conditioning and energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, lighting controls and energy-efficient lighting in buildings, increased insulation beyond Title 24 requirements, and light colored roof materials to reflect heat.

2. Planting of deciduous trees on the south and westerly facing sides of buildings.

3. Providing low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emitting and/or high efficiency water heaters.

4. Sidewalks and bike paths throughout as much of the project as is possible and should be connected to any nearby open space areas, parks, schools, commercial areas, etc.

5. Natural gas/propane lines and electrical outlets should be installed in patio areas to encourage the use of gas and/or electric barbecues.

6. All housing units should include as part of the purchase an electric lawn mower and electric edger.

D. Comply with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that may apply,

including: Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

Because the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations as set forth by Mitigation Measure 2, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15074.1, this discussion merely modifies the mitigation measure to make it an equal or more effective measure, and no additional changes to the IS/MND or recirculation are necessary to respond to this comment.


Letter C

C-1

C-2

Rt*[ivfift

JIJN I 5 TOffg

t{ere*d [eu*ry fltnting sn$ fsnrnun$ ilfv*t*$firtflt $ept.

Smtling lvftmicipal Advirary Caun*il

F,S- Fs* ?44Snslling, CA.S536S

Iwrc l?, $S$

Jam*s Htlllan& $snisr Flnnner

find Merssd Cuunty Flanning Cnrnmission

C*unty sf M*rcd Flaffining &

f,smrrr$niry l}*valtlPru*nt SePt-

X727, M StnectMnrpe& CA, S53+S

*uhje** Lnkeview Frsffifiis! $r*divi*isn I*/S'IF{fi

l"Injar $ubdivisisn Afpticsti*n HS' h{$Sfr4-Sl 4

De* Mr" HsUdnd a$d Merced cOunry Flarmiqg commission:

Aftsr asrsfut srd thpugh lgvinw oftbc I$fv{}[D onth* I;a*erview hoprrtiBr

Subdlvfulon aud public itrpntatttte Junt 10, 2009 $netlitrg Iv{AC meeiling- ue

dstffisirnd that thi*reporfdid not address signific!nt impacns on our conmrurity. Tke

potential impec{$ are serio,rs cuoughh wuffsftsflEtflirof,filcfita} Il{lpsst R!port'

Of ntrrost impottarcg tfrc IS/I\{ND dffes not inshdfi sftdiss on the e*rmtlative imFwts

erd effffts inthefollowing areaal

AirQuditY:

Sucllirg is * &rming comnunity; qgxiculuJrfll oF(rratisus ere the ecomurie bf,Ekbone of

"* orrtl our atres, Urt ** nt rm{ Corrrty. Ths prspolod projact rtnt* be analy"d irt

[gb, "ithts

ftct, noarrs! of its esveffi tron-sttsinm$nt stnhts, ilfcrcsd Cotrnff,, $th' tt

oiln*iA*bg unu'p'rojeet+ cf,D no longcr di*'essrit existing air qr,ralrty dcgradntion in our

"r*-*u*i by: iir g"nictrlrr* nndBottution from &nn,ogentions in sn*nouuding

almod or*hf,rdg, vine,yards, raw cruiq di*ing; hsrv!Fting, pocticide sp(f,yulg, opcration

oruie*"i*onir,irrn, nidrog ve,hicles and herary recr!flfioral ftaffic, espocially during ths

sptiog, sun'men aoit Anl Th!se fffirifrg ofem$og andthe rncregionat Ualfic aro

ri,pifr-r"tfy rcore v*lunblo and npcesscry to ihe local oomomy tSaF frd of ttc proposee

p*j.*t, whicb wruld add to the cxisting rcn'attainmmt"

MERCED COIINTY GEHERAL PLAII pHcvnumbere:

Fottcy fu* Evalflate potwtttd atr qwlity imprcx tbough rhe ewironttrental

revi*w of ott dc*elaW$nt p*ioe&, whieh *wy sfgnificantly iwewe ilir

emtsilaw;

EB 3$3d SHIHHS-]d 'n3 {3tH3l-f BITTSf,{EBE FT:gT 6H6TIFT/gE


Letter C, page 2

C-2 cont.

C-3

C-4

C-5

fqnftqf ,& dll &uclap*arfprqlecf.f wlll be r*ris'ntadfar cowplialarle with

ryptricabl* tegiowlruir WefW Pl*rlt-

Didthecalculdonato dcf*luiac airquality ifrtpfidtsuke imo cmsideeation&e driving

distm$es sf thf avcrfrsc tipu per hou*chold t{t tmoess tsvices aot pnwided in $nelling a

mininnrm of 15 mileE ts M!,Fad" for todr, gm!eric'$ aad othsr dronpin* cnt.gtf,foucfit

Iessoas, spottt" highefi educafino, etc.?

1b!s6 arc already 111rnsnxu$ hrrusirg drvelopents in Mcroed County closer to sorviscs,

whishare s$ardii$ idte, ffi$nhiilS inthousand$ ofrtadld dweloped lots rurcntlyon

hotd, becagse oftln ssonorly! rot io menson fho$s tbat [ave goes bnlkrupt, tumbg thc

proiict* orrerto the bflrks nndmo*gf,gs holers, caueinghugsfinmci*l ccouomic

dissstcr in lvfieroed County's stttwttt essr]nru)f"

Thp accumulativc effects of air pottutrots a! pnovcNt to causc rn4ior hnat& haaards for

rr*idmte, witdtifs aud fars animflls, Govspmeut rcguldion is plaoing stirypnt

rc$ur!m!fis sn farrocrs ts rrfi$e degrad*ion of flrc Air Quslityllu-tbe l:.Z?-W Me,rsed

Sui-Snr micle etrritls4 Cards'ze Helpe $e,flre Money Sor Follutitrs FighL by Caml

Rpltsr, C;ongroasman Cardoca il quotad ns snyir6, oFor sc long qnsrs have boen uildsr

the ggn of inmsaslsg Hffil and stste air quatity ffstricdom.n Ths articlc nlm eilNtss,

"TbJ San Joaquin Valley bss beon dffiignaEd nE an b!(benn rrn-attairmsnt arcmt

meedng fsdfir;l guidcliner*under trs Fd!ral Cleail Air ncf" Tbe rmulting ury qrr"lif

resdildoj5 in tbJsau Joaquin Vgltey am tbe rus$t sEiagatrt tn ths narisn....C8rdsa sf,id

tfrc atr $dtry crisis in th Yalley is hngc." le thc f"olnty of Miroc{ detpte this diffi

pa,out6, wiliing t{r ptrfiit a bou*ing p*uject tr"t TIt St$" norc dogradntioa to 8irqlgltty md jcopardize frisring operations th* ara vital to tre oourtyrs acononff

Tbe fuetlltg Tailiuss Frojcst Sraft EIR unds 3.2.3 Aif Aga$ty Tenrninology ad

AssessilieirlMesrodnlog;1' h tbs BACKGROIJND s!stion' $tsttr:

Atr qllrdlttywttftin tlw SJYAE [s ad#e.f,fsd througft tle effons afvwiowfe&rcl, uue,regirrmad

-ffid laccrl gowrwtwnt agcnciec. IT*se agenciel workJ*intly, $ wall a8

fifrhrtfualry, ta inprow ufu qumtity tlrnqhlegislalln * rcgula/liant, plaraning' Wltcl'-m&ing *av*atlan andavattety afotlurprograms- An4 For eaehtwnattalrn*nt clasr,

the CEAAspecifes atr g;p;ttry i#iwgpms*tsfrdff,sd!s tM mtst he afupted" Far atl

wrtmaiwwm categorles, dttafi1f'fFJrrt plaw *e raryired to futtton$rffie atlw'perceffi'p#r-ygff re&#tiott trt nafiatrrmtwwrst * polltlltanntr or f&rir.prrclrrrars, wwaged *wry

ss'lfeftrftl,f tw*a -yetrFfr$sd,

The corrntt's r+spomibility i$ to clcan up air' uot b allow approva'l of w1ec9ssarypmjects Gtruiti exacerbafe existi[gesndfi$ils, which em ahadydsssifi$d as ns$v!re

irori.anaiurnent". Lask of wtion to clsf,n rry air qudtity co$td sost ths oouaty in IoeEFs of

has$podtatiotr fi$diug and *n spcmal of fines. As s couffy ag$loy,qil'sctly ry*pou$btefor projwts thst impatrt air quality, Th* Flanning Dopdituet *bould b'c rcquXrcd to

58 3$Vd $HIHHV-]d 'fi$ ff3tH3lqf HTTTSTTEEE FE:gT EFET/f iTIgB


Letter C, page 3

C-5 cont.

C-6

C-7

C-8

C-9

tryhold thnt stasdtrd uftpn considering whm propomd pmjscts contribrrc ard donteooFibuta to thfs6 goa.le, $eightod by the impor&aa+e oftbs projeat'* long-temrcontribrution to thc counqfs ecotrmy, i.s. an agdculfi$at prujs't or parojcct that willirmease long term cmplclment olpormrldes vs. a housiag dovelopment The PlroningDepe$mant, f,tthe vary least sbould requirc couptchmciw sildies on qrmuletirnc effectofthese projscts.

Tntfic Inpr+t;

Traffic thmugh Snelling lus sigsificantly isfir!fis!d in receutyean and contiuues togtuw. This irchrdes tssncntioml tuffic, daily comuuto uaffic pasdugthrough ftomoutsidothpsr!q tnrcl<sfromsurroundinggravclqrcruinns,nihishmskcmultiphd*ilytips, rnd &nning rthicles" TIF IS/nAhlD does rpt ifslude a sudy adftmsing thi* inpmu

This p'rojeet wi'll causc significent safety issues rc$tdins traffic. The primary isnrt is theIeS tun into tbs p*ojest at two separats entah*s. The location of the Sroject's wtramcesmd eldts are in close pmximity lo tbose of Heudcrson Park Trf,trc tarrcls at a high rmcof speed on thnt s!ction of Merced Fanie rof,d- Wkn c.et stop !0 mah! e left finrl aad'uftilitfor oucoming tmf,fic, all traffic betrind tb!m r$itt hs\E to sons !o a riop, aloug vvith thcproxitttity oftha park exitr urxl mtrmces this wiII c'!$ats baenrdous and dangerouscorditi,onE.

Also, taffic eugin!frs and *ir qrrality ogeociee havo urguted this kisd of sihntionbecaus! it cantsoc at inoreass of urb cffrisrions. This would bc a signifcant impacthecausp cf thc ffEftrrnt of vehicler such ss grevsl tnrcks, RV's, motor honce {rdoomom$em soppfug andstsrtiqg; rcquiringnitigEtionr $phssnm kn6 ardacontroll!d sdo-cmssirg for visitoffi asd rcsidb#ts tn the pn'ojc+t to ac,qecs tlw ps*.

Impect on ffchooll

$netlinglltderced Fails Ebroentrry School enjoys a $maII Scboots classificuiou thatdetermineo its funding. Currt*rfly, attr,fdstrctr is nppmxiurtely 80 to Ei strdfirts, Nostudi*s werc iru:ludcd on the impston the school from arub*tantial iacrctscto thsstud!ffi Fpul*ion canced by th* pmojecde 35 boweholds. Would ths incrsflse plft theschool into adiffsernt tier ad cersrc it to be rnder fimd!d if classificd differeutly bemtr$eof grorrth? Will de*relope fees pay fur all fucility improvmrcrrt* to acconnrodategrorvth: more sfud!,nt$! mort fsdcbrrs, Aide$ ad Sptrifrl Ed edsils?

Csncsns wercraisdabout safessaffis to lbc school fsr childfif, trho would rcsidc intheFrojttt The uasonboltrd int$ffiion of La Grmge Road Erd Mercod'Falti Soad isrm*sfE. A saf! cmssing st tbf,t in*ersectiqa aqd r hike pnth through the pnoject, eu'ayfrom the highway" b tho !nhamd of the sahooL should be hdlt by the develoiper. Thedevelop,or shflrld also bear tbe complete burden ofthe construction costs of this bikcwaysnd iilterscction improvernents, as the projd u'ill gamrue flll pCIds$trian taffic alongSis mut!.

tB 3$Vd $NIHHV-]d 'BI fl33H31,{ ETTTSETEEE FE:ST EEEf, / f iT/gE


Letter C, page 4

C-10

C-11

C-12

C-13

C-14

Woodl*nrls *nil $enctfivt Rfprfirn H*titlt:

Ths Plsnning departnent hss bsen oansidrriug mviroumc,ntnl impacts accordfutg to

individual p*p"r.d p$ojcsts inth! srcs, bnt bns a rtudybffiidsds on t}ls crmulativs

strec{s of lost habitat fur eodugercd spwies ud woodlands as a rvhols?

A fcw trrees r!mov$d here und thsre on un tndlvidrrnl p'rrrj!cf, ltf,y n.ot dDFaar dguificant

hrttf,hffiao{6idffid in light sfqlnuldive impaatx occuiling eofi Eldsfiif,gslitriry f,nd

fuh$! projedt$" q,tst is th! etrEstonthe Mercod River sansitive riparisnhabiUtoverdl?

Whnt abor$ t6g preworu desmmion of Valley Osk Woodtflnd habitat which as stdEd on

psgs ?2 of thc tStv[hID, ums "..^bighly di$ulbcd dua to clcaring in2005 !y the laud

ln-tu*r which result!d in th rcmonal of rxdrstwy vegetndon qrd $6v$rrl lolge vallcy

saks dd cottonwsods."? tooldng atthe ro*p, figuc 2, it rccru there wouldhave baru ahigh probability of Blue Eltubefly bushc$ desnoyed also. Whst tsem ihe cod$sqrnnses

fr;hft a$ionsf Why ir thi* praviously closrsd lsnd not includcd iil th* ptEsdwG and the

Mitigsriou and Monitoting Plan?

csQA:

Important aumulntive impacB on &e aomrnuntty of $rwllitrg *A.sufqdhg eltf,s ardtrie

""i""edmsg in th* IS/MNS. 'CEQA Cruidelinee requirc th$ all Eaviranruental Impf,Gt

nfeCIrts {EIR} contrin an mnlysis of cumulativc impants. Ar EIR must dissu$$ the

tuinutmive iupf,st' of a projwt v,hffi its inerc, !ilIt*l ftrect witl bs cuuulatively

coueidffiabft. Slction 15355 of thc Ouidelines defines cumtfdive impaets 0$ 'rwo or

mare firdfvt&td effacts whtch wlun considsred tagethsr, se cowtderuhle ot whith

cottpourd or iwiam athet aftvirofimefltal imptots?, A grrrruladw ispact'cotttist* of an

ifi3g whithls cresfad4s a resuht of ttte colmblrtlaition of the paiect evahlarted tn rlre EIR

togutln, with atlrer pralects cattsiag related tmWtl ($estion 15130(nXl))"

Thwtfore m Envimnm*ntnl Imprct Af,fofi rhoukl bt ruquirud for &s Lrksvtslv

Pnopcr:tiec Subdivision.

Othar ArceN of Concsru:

Dr*tnngr tnia lfcrcsd Rlvcr *d Fo[utiow

Has a stpdy beendone on pc,reolation onthomcEpile,r "49*

tbc htues and yards will

be locUedi What about tbn potrntial fot sontarnisntioq of the river s$d thE aqulfer

connrctod to shallow wells still in use in Bnnlling, from houschsld hssa$dous nstffials

and poltutants $r$h ss frngioidcs, Feetiddss, detergentsn tootor oils etc'?

Will thc Ost6ntisn Bs$is bs Und with inperyious unteriel to pevent contamin*.ion

Som tlowing iffo tr* shallow aquifcrcmrnesdtotheriver and sballawwells in

$rnlling?

EB 35Sd $HIHHS-]d '[] U3tH3]"1 HTTTTETEBE FT:9I EEHT/ST/38


Letter C, page 5

C-15

C-16

C-17

C-18

C-19

C-20

Pagc 65 usd!r Mitigsioa Meamrs I l: it staps: Tlw created weilwd tlall hpcarrst awted fis ewate qvil#* lngww*mentfeatW* to ptot*ct gro*dwAt*rfrOm the

adrrerss effects of wbsn rwaff.

Accsfdirg to ths I$/I\{ND the "c,f!#sd" wetland wiU be constnmed in ths dredgcr

tsilfuse Can you !Nrplsin how this is snfpo$!d to work uthffi drcdgcr tsilitrgs provide no

nffiffi&I filfrntiqn?

Wrs a study dhilno on flte !xlstiry houshg Sffij!st built appfiottitilstely 20 ycut 489 aloug

Mcrced Fdle Rosd? Tb# olvn!nrl of thwe houses luow that dressiug rock piles with top

$oil 1vrlt nCIt work The soil warhff thruugh the rccks ard diseppe{re Ssrne hf,ve

suffcred danage to tbeir homcs b!,Ealls! ofsctliqg Som top dirt erosion.

R*$rd|ng Fl*rcuryl Ou sits ts$tin$ for lrr{crwury levels lrqs trot wndustgd. Rssults

werr use* &om e diftrent sftdies tfrnt urera dc'ne on lqnd &ree mitss below tbe p,oiest

sif nnd onp north of ttp projcct slts. No knorryn recoads ffist on hszildst$ wasle spilte

duriflg tbe ortgiual dredging. Thetcfora, witbw acnrnl onsifs t6$Urg on tle FropossdpoJect site, tvlersury oontaminstiotr osffiotbe ruled otn.

ftr pago 58, thc ISIIT{ND $trlnc udcr t}n spotion dtled }lazards and Haualdaus Mafriels

Impgst Ewtrration VIIIa) Lese than nignificen* t%ts eparli*rfoa fsJlrl"I&er retrdorted by

ttgfdtt tlw tlw poJett includes fld #d#rdtiotr faater r*czJor nJdli{y Ji*cuJ t!* would

*Aiose ttwfit* csdnrenr$ wtthin wd a tI* bottoms ottlte raifftgspilas ws b+*oeh.,

'fhc above suxt!Nnegt is coaitradirtory. Thsts Tuitt still be excavntion done forutility lirco

thst could potentiatty dietu$ Mrroury in *p coil. $lhet absut ex$avcdsn for the 35

sdpsrnts *lllc *f,t witl pul*h through the hsdrock and could potmtially Mercury

s,nte*fnatlan in the deefrer aquifet* that conncct wift thr rivcr and Snelling wells?

Hn$cly Osrud ln{grdon lXtchl

At thg Snelliqg Ml\C mcefing on Jrre l0th" tu.rmeuous 6trscnil8 werc voicad by the

users md oqmars ofthie ditcb, urhich bss hctrr in txistfficc ontbp Pntjcct poo'pety sincc

th* carly 1900s, At this mccting rl/c wcrt told by thc projest ptescntm thnt CDFG would

not allow nry alteration ofthe dttch duc to wild life habitae Wtme is thc tugpolse lcttrf

flrom CDFO c.oncffning this plojwt and rpecific to ths irdg*ion ditcb? th! IS&dI{D

stfit*s on pqgp 62 under th! scc"tiou titted Hydrology and Watcn Qulity $cniug:

fu COE has tktarpdwd thilt tlle ditth i* nat jwisdictiorzril ard the CbFfi fus rws

epnrl'&r tlw dttsh arcgul*ed strewt*

The openditclr runs through the whole projest fitrdwillbc a*cessible to shildrffi in thE

development, creatirg ahatildou$ ffttl$dverui$ans!. The ditchowll!il:$ amhigbly

concerned aboffi th darger to shildrcn and their liability in tbs cgs6 of fln acsidett Ths

ditch strould bc ppt undcrground and cove,rrod to prcvent tlris, wlth alt aon$ms"tisft ad

costs b6i$g *rE ttspofisibility of tfie developer, Tbie should bc sott:trl!$sd h Fhas I of tlrc

6H SSVd SHIHHV-]d 'ES {33t31*l STTTSSIEHE FE T5T 6BBT/FT/58


Letter C, page 6

C-21

C-22

C-23

C-24

C-25

Frojost.\Nihcn an oilhcr infina,stflrctnrc: $tr'ffitd, stoffa draia fapilitiaq 1lump gtdiouso str*stligkiqt utilitie+ asd ld't gradiug i* done.

Mrintsnrncs, Mitigrtion rnd Monitoringl

The ISITvIND prupose* that a Horusorryrcr's A$sooietion would be formed lo cover tbp

sost of mitigptod rcquhcmcarts, mnintaanns! and'nconitoring. tXomrowns Acsocialiqfs

hnve * fiack rffird of uot rnrurking as dcsigncd af,d wsuld uot be ad!qunto to covcr the

nffids and raaponsibilities outlinad i$ thc IS/hdhID'

A Cortrtnunity Fimnca Dishict tCfD) shoutd bc astabtstted to covcr sll id!ntifi!dm*inttnsilso strd lcparr obligadoru aod to in$se fhs mitigntions ngrdupon bytheden'etoper nnd c,+uuty are proporly oani*d out ingltdingi sewflgB lifi gt+tion, m*tiue

ffiFtBsirfi!nfirc!r i"&eet lighdns mitigafed'Uea ftinuaing; $torrn drein bdsin, stont,

drain pump, stsrm &Hin bgtrs box, effilogical fesgrvc anaff! propotcd pasrive rccneation

arca, fuG protection, sheriffpotedion, ffiy so t associitsd $ith Ecintaidng the inigntion

ditch ffnd vegefrfive bufftr uofisr fleil mitigstsd biologicat sonc&rnli"

Rcaeut huusing msrkct issucshsse alrcedy dcuronsraed tbs serious dverse !ffwtthstpoor ptaruring cau heve ou lhe !catrouny sud enyironmcfit, This Cf{D should he dweloped

and inptasa *imutmneouslywithth* developer agrtrffit to protcct thBsouofry snd

taxfyirs ftou ancruing costs sssocistd witlt thc project-

On page 6+ it states that the mllective s'torm ur$er dstEation systEn would be off-eite.Tfonld the cnnsmrd w*tlards also be off-silo? If so, will it hF itrsludd ln the mitignfionrud nodtoringplffi in appcudix A?

Ili*creprncie*t

Applicnntl0umffis nffne ligtod uE Jill.firossraq but Ed fimcsmsfl'$ siglaftrc is ot thc

mitigntion apc!ptawt coutrast. Is this bindiug?

Uudsr Dsrcription of hjcct-Loodion: it says" "ThE Lah*vicw hoBertier rubdivision isto*f,ficd Et tbe no*lr+ast corffir of Merped Falls Road ad L* Orange Road on a 5S rwpaircsl.."."; thfffl it $tafss. *Thp Lakwiew Pmperties Subdiviaisn ploicct ie wnpoeed of

one par,cal, idcntifi!d as M!rsed Couuty Ass!ssot's Pf,rc!l Huuber: 043-020-'053 whiah

*owstlisparcel as 5S rers. Wbiclr isifl

In appendix A: Mitigation nnd Monitoring Plu it *tahs; "Thii mitigntion and monitoringplanaddreseeu articiptlrd impncts to sensitive hiologicd tesorrass on tlte f,l rsrti,akevicw Estst!s $ubdivision Prcjet Sits.n \tr/as this study dose sn tlre whole 5$ nffes?

Will the mitigation aud monitoring affi to thc wtrole 58 ocms?

We-recogntrzc that Snolling will continupto gro"r" Thir proJect, aficording ro thc ISfi\'IND,

wilt sdd at lesst 120 people ts thls comrounity whtoh currcntly has a populadon of ?91.Thst is m inorcrsfi of ryptoxirnafcly 5096, asigrificfftt impast'

8T 3SVd SHIHHS-]d '[3 ff3tt3Fl HTtTSATSEfi Ffr :5T FBgf, /gT/gE


Letter C, page 7

C-26

We believe th*t decisi'ors on propoeed projeet* need to bs bas6d on thc +rrmulativeisp*fiB of nll existing pmjoct iu this anlt and county wid6, ircludfug frm operntim*.housiug aud gravel mfuiry Thcsc sfirdioe $tould en$$e that the souily dtrd ths taxpsydrsdo not bef,r firansial burdetsasd thst saf!ty issues src addrs$d and bindingoutheapplicunt bdorp rppnvrl.

In conchreion, tbp IS/lVlI{n frih to addrsss and strdy slgnifiaa* nud importnre impactson the Snclling carnmunity a$d arcq cspecially an flre curtruletive effects listed above.Ther,cfore, tlre $netling i4AC strorgly advis!s that ar Eryirsrmemtal l&psct Rcpsrt onthe la&cview h,oprties Subdivisisn shoutd be rcquirpd bEforp the project is allowed topdoo!sd.

C:urdun firaySnellimg [dAt Chairperson

$rrsan Ryrnrr$nelling h,{AC Vi*e Chaiqperson

MffiineFricsSn*lling MAC Se*remry

frnig JuhnsonSnctling MAC Bsa1d Mernber

Alsts Bauer {by written prffiy}

Sn+lling MAC Bonrd Mernber

cfi: Rabeat A, LewisSevel$prnent $ervices Direct$r

trsirdre KelseyMerced C*rrnty $upervisor

TT 3$3d SHIHNV-]d 'ilS ff33H3Fl B TT TSETEBA Ff, :5 T 6HHg IE T /gB


Response to Letter C Commentor Snelling Municipal Advisory Council June 12, 2009 C-1 The comment states that the IS/MND does not evaluate cumulative impacts to air quality.

The comment emphasizes that Snelling is a farming community with numerous agricultural operations that contribute to cumulative air quality impacts that need to be considered with the project analysis. The comment further states that these farming operations and the recreational traffic are significantly more valuable and necessary to the local economy than that of the proposed project, which would add to the existing non-attainment status of the Air Basin.

The IS/MND Section III, Air Quality, evaluates the proposed project’s air quality effects using the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) guidelines and finds that all impacts to air quality would be less than significant, or less than significant with implementation of mitigation. The IS/MND Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance, question 3, considers whether or not the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution on any environmental issue. The finding states that: “Though implementation of the project could contribute to cumulative effects in these areas, the effects of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.” Further, the SJVAPCD reviewed the project and submitted a comment letter (Letter B). Comment B-1 states that the District finds that, “the project is expected to have no significant adverse impact on air quality.” Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-2 The comment cites Merced County’s General Plan Policy Numbers 24 and 26, which require the evaluation of air quality impacts and compliance with applicable regional air quality plans.

See responses to comment C-1 and C-3. The project was evaluated pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s air quality assessment protocols for projects of the size proposed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, construction and operation of the project would be compliant with all adopted regional, state, and federal plans to attain air quality goals in the San Joaquin Valley. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-3 The comment questions whether calculations to determine air quality impacts take into consideration the driving distances of the average trips per household to access services not provided in Snelling. The comment further states that there are already numerous housing developments in Merced County closer to services, which are on hold due to the economy.

The IS/MND Section III, Air Quality, evaluates the proposed project’s air quality effects using adopted SJVAPCD guidelines and procedures. In this case, the project met the screening criteria for the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). Projects meeting the criteria for SPAL require no further evaluation for air quality effects. Further, the SJVAPCD


reviewed the project and submitted a comment letter (Letter B). Comment B-1 states that the District finds that, “the project is expected to have no significant adverse impact on air quality.” Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-4 The comment states that cumulative effects of air pollution cause health hazards for residents, wildlife, and farm animals. The comment asks if Merced County is willing to permit a housing project that will cause additional degradation to air quality and jeopardize farming operations that are vital to the county’s economy.

See responses to comments C-1, C-2, and C-3. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

C-5 The comment quotes the Snelling Tailing Project Draft EIR regarding air quality planning in non-attainment areas. The comment states that the County’s responsibility is to improve air quality, not to allow approval of unnecessary projects that will exacerbate existing conditions. The comment further states that the Planning Department should require comprehensive studies on cumulative effects of these projects.

See responses to comments C-1, C-2, and C-3. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

C-6 The comment states that traffic through Snelling has significantly increased in recent years, and that the IS/MND does not include a study addressing the impact of increased traffic.

The IS/MND, Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, evaluates the project’s impacts on traffic within the CEQA checklist format. Based on the project’s estimated trip generation of 342 average daily trips, correspondence from the Department of Public Works Road Division, and County records that show the overall operating conditions on roadways that serve the project site meet the County’s traffic operating service standards, a more detailed traffic study was not required. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-7 The comment states that the project will cause significant traffic safety issues, especially from vehicles slowing to enter project driveways and forcing high-speed traffic behind them to stop. The comment further states that this would be a significant impact and would require mitigations such as turn lanes and a controlled safe-crossing for visitors and residents in the project to access the park. The comment states that this type of traffic condition would result in an increase in auto emissions.


The IS/MND, Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, evaluates the project’s safety-related traffic effects. Based on correspondence from the Department of Public Works Road Division, a more detailed traffic safety study was not required. See response to comment C-6. The project would be required to construct off-site road improvements in accordance with Mitigation Measure 14, and Merced County and Caltrans standards. For air quality impacts, see responses to comments C-1, C-2, and C-3. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-8 The comment questions whether the increase in students from the proposed project would result in reduced school funding, and whether the developer will pay for facility improvements to accommodate growth.

The IS/MND Section XIV, Public Services, evaluates the proposed project impacts to schools. According to population generation factors used by Merced County, the construction of 35 single-family units would result in approximately 120 residents. An increase in residents and school-aged children would result in an additional use of schools. Increased student enrollment demand would result in a finding of a significant environmental impact if the project would result in the need for a new or physically altered physical facilities, and construction of such facilities could cause significant environmental impacts. According to the Snelling-Merced Falls Elementary School, there is currently capacity for growth at the existing facility (Snelling-Merced Falls Elementary School staff 2009). As stated in the IS/MND, the additional use of schools was anticipated and planned for in the Merced County General Plan. Since school funding is not an environmental issue, it will not be discussed further.

Since no new environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

C-9 The comment states concerns about safe access to the school for the children who would reside in the project. The comment further states that the developer, at his cost, should build a safe crossing at the Merced Falls Road and La Grange Road intersection and a bike path through the project, away from the highway, to the entrance of the school.

As discussed in the IS/MND and response to comment C-7, the project would be required to construct off-site road improvements in accordance with Merced County and Caltrans standards, and the project’s safety-related traffic effects were found to be less than significant. There are existing roadway shoulders along Merced Falls Road typical of the project area. The project site is zoned R-1 Residential, making it eligible for full ‘urban’ improvements as defined by the Public Works Department. The level of improvements required may be subject to agreement negotiated between the Public Works Department and the applicant/property owner.

The typical distance that is generally considered an acceptable walking distance to school is 1-2 miles, depending on the school children’s age. Based on 12 studies from the United States and abroad, research has found that the distance between home and school is the


strongest influence on whether children walk or bike to school—as travel distance increases, the number of children walking or biking decreases. One study found that students living within one mile of school were three times more likely to walk to school than to travel by automobile (Active Living Research 2009). The proposed project is located approximately one-half mile from Snelling-Merced Falls Elementary School, a reasonable walking distance.

To provide a safe walking route to the school for children who will reside in the proposed subdivision, Mitigation Measure 14 is amended to include the following:

As part of the site improvement/preparation process required for recording a final map, the applicant shall construct a walking path on the north side of Merced Falls Road that runs from the southeast corner of proposed lot #25 as shown on Figure 5, Sensitive Biological Habitats, September 2009, westwards to the intersection of Merced Falls Road and La Grange Road. The applicant shall also provide for the installation of a street light at this intersection. The walking path shall be aligned to avoid additional impacts to oak trees on the project site beyond those outlined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and detailed in Mitigation Measure 7. The exact alignment, dimensions, and surfacing of this walking path shall be approved by the Merced County Department of Public Works Road Division.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15074.1, this amendment modifies the mitigation measure to make it an equal or more effective measure, and no additional changes or recirculation of the IS/MND would be necessary to respond to this comment.

C-10 The comment questions whether a study has been done on the cumulative effects of lost habitat for endangered species and woodlands, and also requests an analysis of cumulative impacts to Merced River riparian habitat.

The IS/MND, Section IV, Biological Resources, evaluated the project’s biological resource effects. Because of concerns with project specific and cumulative biological resource effects, including the California Department of Fish and Game’s concern’s with migration corridors and connectivity between areas of natural habitat, the proposed project was substantially reduced in size and redesigned to avoid potential biological resource effects, including the creation of a four-acre Ecological Preserve and nine-acre Passive Recreation Area to preserve natural habitat and the potential for animal migration through and around the site. Figure 5 Sensitive Biological Habitats in the IS/MND has been updated to reflect up-to-date project layout and shows the preserve and recreation areas. The four-acre Ecological Preserve area would be located on the western edge of the project site and would be used to create one 0.467-acre wetland, serve as an area to permanently protect transplanted and existing elderberry bushes, and preserve oak trees located within this portion of the project site. The nine-acre Passive Recreation Area would also offer permanent habitat protection for biological resources. Of the 37 acres to be developed, 25 acres would be on dredge tailings and the remaining 12 acres would be within oak woodland habitat. The Valley Oak Woodland habitat is moderately to highly disturbed due to clearing in 2005 by the land owner which resulted in the removal of understory vegetation and several large valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). With the revised site plan, all but three acres of this oak woodland habitat would be avoided by the project design as depicted in IS/MND Figure 5.


All of the project-related biological resource impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level with Mitigation Measures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Mitigation Measure 3 requires fully funding a biological resource monitor. Further, Mitigation Measure 4 includes: (1) creation of buildable areas to restrict the proposed development’s impact area and require avoidance of riparian habitat, oak woodland, blue elderberry shrubs and associated sensitive biological resources; and (2) permanent protection of biological resources in four-acre Ecological Preserve and the nine-acre Passive Recreation Area.

Because: (1) the applicant substantially reduced the project in size and redesigned its building areas to avoid potential biological resource effects as well as included a four-acre Ecological Preserve and nine-acre Passive Recreation Area; and (2) the project-specific biological impacts have been minimized as well as further reduced as mitigated (including a biological resource monitor as well as restricting development area to minimize biological resource impacts); the proposed project was found to not make a cumulatively considerable effect to potentially significant cumulative biological resource effects.

Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-11 The comment requests information regarding the 2005 land clearing that resulted in the removal of understory vegetation and several large valley oaks and cottonwoods, and asks if there were consequences for the land clearing. The comment further questions why this previously cleared land was not included in the preserve and the Mitigation and Monitoring plan.

See response to comment C-10. The redesign of the proposed project development area, as well as the detailed language in Mitigation Measures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, is based on negotiations between the applicant, the County, and CDFG as a result of the unauthorized 2005 land clearing by the applicant. Specifically, the protection of four-acres of Ecological Preserve and nine-acres of Passive Recreation Area includes compensation for estimated effects of the 2005 land clearing. Further, the County may issue enforcement actions and penalties upon the applicant for any failure to comply with the project’s mitigation measures and approval conditions.


C-12 The comment states that cumulative impacts on the community of Snelling and surrounding areas were not addressed in the IS/MND. The comment further states that CEQA guidelines require that all Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) contain a cumulative analysis, citing CEQA Guidelines §§ 15255 and 15130(a)(1), and that an EIR should be required for the Lakeview Properties Subdivision.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a) states where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines § 15355 defines cumulative


impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”

CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, Substantial Evidence, provides that “substantial evidence” means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.”

Based on the substantial evidence in the record, including all of the analyses in the IS/MND Sections I through XVIII, and review and comments by the lead and responsible agencies, Section XVIII (3) finds that “though implementation of the project could contribute to cumulative effects in these areas, the effects of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.” For specific issues, such as air quality and biological resources, this conclusion has been ratified by the appropriate regulatory bodies. See comment B-1 and response to comment C-10. Because the project would result in no potentially significant cumulative impacts, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b) and 15070, a Negative Declaration is the proper document in compliance with CEQA and no EIR would be necessary.

Although the comment disagrees with the findings of Section XVIII (3), this is an opinion that is not supported by the provision of new or alternative fact-based evidence and does not change the substantial evidence of the record. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

C-13 The comment asks if a study has been done on percolation on the rock piles where the houses and yards would be located. The comment also questions the potential for contamination of the river and the aquifer connected to shallow wells still in use in Snelling from household hazardous materials and pollutants.

The IS/MND Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, states that, consistent with Merced County’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) permit, all projects are required to use “Best Management Practices” (BMP) to mitigate potential adverse effects of development activity on water quality, including effects of discharges of urban runoff to groundwater. With implementation of NPDES permit requirements and BMPs, the project would not result in a violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, degradation of ground or surface waters, or adverse effects due to runoff.

It is unknown whether formal testing to determine percolation rates within the onsite materials has been conducted. The potential for contamination of the Merced River or underlying aquifer from household hazardous materials or pollutants once the project is built and operational is considered less than significant for the following reasons:


− Residents of the proposed development would be subject to the same county, state, and federal codes regarding proper hazardous waste storage and disposal as other residential areas within Merced County.

− Merced County, in collaboration with the City of Merced and the Merced Irrigation District, is actively implementing a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2007. The SWMP includes a specific program for post-construction storm water management in new developments that will address post construction storm water runoff with both structural (i.e. detention basins, etc.) and nonstructural controls. The County currently requires that developers restrict storm water discharge by requiring site specific detention/retention basins for all new projects (MSWG April 2007).

− The project will be served by the Snelling Community Services District (District) wastewater collection system; therefore a large majority of household products such as cleaners and detergents that become part of the gray water would be collected and treated by the District prior to any release.

− Any household hazardous waste that is disposed of in residential trash bins will be collected and disposed of by a solid waste collection service.

− Under Mitigation Measure 12, the project applicant is required to protect the Merced River from any potential contamination by implementing BMPs as required by the Merced County Public Works Department pursuant to the County’s NPDES permit.

− Under Mitigation Measures 11 and 12, stormwater discharge, which could contain low levels of fungicides or pesticides from yard and lawn applications, would be conveyed first to the storm water detention basin designed to accommodate a 25-year storm and second to the constructed wetland for further detention and treatment in order to protect groundwater from any risk of contamination.


C-14 The comment questions if the detention basin would be lined with impervious material to prevent contamination from flowing into the shallow aquifer connected to the river and shallow wells in Snelling.

See response to comment C-13. The proposed project and all development applications within Merced County are required to comply with NPDES permit requirements and stormwater control BMP practices. In order to ensure a less than significant impact to water quality, any polluted storm water being detained by the detention basin should not enter the adjacent groundwater table at such a rate to impact subsurface water quality. In light of the seasonally high groundwater table and considerable groundwater gradient from the project site to the Merced River, it is important to control the rate of infiltration within the proposed detention basin to allow time for settlement, deposition, and adsorption. To increase protection of water quality, Mitigation Measure 12 is amended to include the following:


Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall be required to submit plans of the proposed detention and wetland treatment facilities to the Merced County Public Works Department for review and approval. Plans at a minimum shall include detention basin location, size, inlet and outlet details, and specified lining and construction materials. This will allow for engineering review of the designs to ensure that polluted water is sufficiently detained and treated without impacting groundwater quality.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15074.1, this amendment modifies the mitigation measure to make it an equal or more effective measure, and no additional changes or recirculation of the IS/MND would be necessary to respond to this comment.

C-15 The comment states that, according to the IS/MND, the created wetland would be constructed in the dredger tailings. The comment questions how this is supposed to work when dredger tailing provide no natural filtration.

The created wetland would be in series with the constructed detention basin and therefore would provide a second opportunity to contain and treat runoff from the project site. Wetlands impart water quality treatment in a variety of ways, including settlement and deposition, soil adsorption, and plant uptake, and not just through subsurface infiltration (see graphic below).

With amendment of Mitigation Measure 12 as provided in response to comment C-14, the wetland would be engineered to detain surface water adequately for water quality improvements and appropriately for containing the estimated runoff volumes within the


project site soils and high groundwater table. The amended measure would allow for engineering review of the designs to ensure that the estimated volume of polluted stormwater runoff is adequately detained and treated without any impacts to groundwater.


C-16 The comment questions if a study was done on the existing housing project built approximately 20 years ago along Merced Falls Road. The comments adds that the owners of those houses know that dressing rock piles with top soil will not work; that soil washes through the rocks and disappears; and that some of these homes have suffered damage from the settling of “top dirt erosion.”

The IS/MND Section VI, Geology and Soils, considered geology and soils conditions and found the proposed project area would not be located in an unstable seismic area, an unstable soils area, or an area of known ground subsidence. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with all building requirements within Merced County including the prevailing California Building Codes. The project applicant’s building plans would be reviewed by Merced County’s Building and Safety Division to ensure compliance with California Building Codes. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-17 The comment points out that on-site testing for mercury levels were not conducted, and that results were used from adjacent studies. The comment states that without on-site testing, mercury contamination cannot be ruled out.

The IS/MND Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides a summary of the research conducted by Wondjina Research Institute into the probability of mercury toxicity on the project site. While it is true that soil taken directly from within the boundaries of the project site has not been tested for mercury levels, the test areas off-site were chosen as having the highest probability of mercury toxicity because these are known for high levels of dredging. Therefore, the two separate studies both immediately north and southeast of the project site provide strong evidence that a less than significant level of mercury would be expected to occur within the site. Most applicable is the 2001 report (Wondjina Research Institute April 2001) that tested soil samples from five locations, as well as surface water samples from ponds generally within 100 feet of each sample site, to determine if mercury was being leached into the groundwater. Two of the five soil sample sites were located only 500 to 600 feet north of the project site. All soil and water samples in this investigation came back at less than the 4 parts per billion (ppb), the detection limit for mercury. The more recent 2004 study (Stillwater Sciences 2004) that investigated mercury levels in an area roughly a mile from the project site further substantiates the low levels of mercury found in similar dredger tailings deposited along the historic floodplain of the Merced River. This report concluded that even the highest mercury levels found in the sampled dredger tailings were still within the range of natural background levels for the Central Valley. Based on previous investigations, there is no indication that mercury levels within the project site would be significantly high enough to cause water quality impairment during project


construction or operation. As established in the IS/MND, there would be a less-than-significant impact from potential mercury contamination.


C-18 The comment states that the IS/MND section Hazards and Hazardous Materials contains contradictory language regarding excavation for the utility lines and installation of 35 separate wells. The comment questions whether drilling through the bottom of tailings could mobilize mercury-contaminated sediments and cause mercury contamination in the deeper aquifers that connect to the river and Snelling wells.

The comment presents an inconsistency in the text of impact VIIIa. To clarify, it should be stated that the project proposes to level and grade the existing tailings and add imported clean topsoil to complete the building lots and pads, and there will be no need for extensive excavation outside of trenching for utility lines and drilling for the 35 water wells. As discussed in response to comment C-17, there is strong evidence that a less than significant level of mercury would be expected to occur within the site based on two separate studies. To prevent waterway contamination (and in line with response to comment C-13), the utility line trench work and individual well construction would require temporary construction BMPs for containing the excavated soil onsite during trenching, drilling, backfilling, and compacting operations; therefore, this work should not release fine sediments to existing waterways. While there is some possibility that sediment could be released into individual wells during construction, compliance with the Merced County Well Ordinance (Merced County Code Chapter 9.28) would prevent infiltration of any kind during operation. In addition, County Code § 9.28.090, Water Analyses, would require the Merced County Health Officer to obtain water samples for chemical and bacteriological analysis prior to operation of any well. Should any contaminants be present, it would be deemed a failed well and a new well must be constructed. Given the strong evidence that a less than significant level of mercury would be expected to occur at the site, in addition to Merced County well standards and testing, either trenching for utilities or drilling for water wells would be less than significant in terms of creating a hazard to the public or the environment due to mercury transport, use, or disposal.


C-19 The comment questions CDFG’s jurisdiction over the ditch. The comment states that a project representative told the June 10, 2009, Snelling Municipal Advisory Meeting attendees that CDFG would not allow any alteration to the ditch due to wildlife habitat. The comment questions where the documentation from CDFG is located to support that statement. The comment further points out that the IS/MND on page 62 presents the following conflicting statement: The COE has determined that the ditch is non-jurisdictional and the CDFG does not consider the ditch a regulated stream.

The CDFG’s finding that the ditch is non-jursidictional under Section 1600 in not in conflict with CDFG’s view that the stream is a valuable wildlife habitat. Several meetings were held between CDFG Regional Headquarters staff (Annie Ferrante) in Fresno, the project


applicant, and County staff regarding the importance of habitat represented by the ditch (December 20, 2006 and November 21, 2008). The requests of CDFG regarding habitat preservation are included in the project biological resources mitigation plan; therefore, the mitigation plan is the record of negotiation between the project applicant and CDFG. Since no new environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

C-20 The comment states that the ditch runs through the whole project and will be accessible to children in the development, creating a hazardous attractive nuisance. The comment promotes that the ditch be put underground and covered to prevent exposure to a hazardous attractive nuisance and suggests that the costs of this proposal be the responsibility of the developer.

As described in response to comment C-19 above, CDFG views the ditch as a valuable wildlife habitat that needs to be preserved, as outlined in the project biological resources mitigation plan. During the County’s review of the proposed project, none of the reviewing agencies found the existing ditch to be a hazardous attractive nuisance; rather the ditch was considered to be a visual amenity. To protect habitat resources, the lots adjacent to the irrigation ditch would be fenced to provide a barrier between the ‘improvement area’ of each lot and the habitat area and ditch corridor. While the fencing material has yet to be determined, this should significantly reduce the accessibility and potential attractiveness of the irrigation ditch to subdivision residents. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-21 The comment states that a Community Finance District should be established for maintenance and repair, in addition to ensuring mitigation measures are implemented. The comment additionally states that recent conditions in the Merced County housing market demonstrate the effects that poor planning can have on the economy and environment.

Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 require that the project applicant fully fund implementation of all biological mitigation measures prior to implementation of the project, including the funding of future monitoring. The Home Owner’s Association (HOA) called for in Mitigation Measure 4 also provides that the project applicant will establish an endowment to fully fund any HOA activities for implementation and operation of all needed biological mitigation. Alternately, the project applicant may elect to transfer such responsibilities to a qualified outside entity with approval of the County. Any outside entity would also be endowed by the project applicant.

Additionally, should the County choose to approve the proposed subdivision, the County is required to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan to ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented. Finally, regarding non-environmental conditions placed on the project (such as those cited relating to infrastructure construction and maintenance), the County requires the posting of a bond to ensure their completion prior to approving any final subdivision map if such improvements have not been constructed prior to final map approval. Because of these various requirements for funding mitigation measures and


required improvements prior to the initiation of any construction, future maintenance of infrastructure would be provided by the County or service district according to the policies of the two entities from funding sources generally applicable to similar residential uses within their respective service areas. Thus, the County believes that there is no need for the establishment of a Community Finance District at this time due to overlapping requirements for the funding of the construction and operation of identified mitigation measures and needed infrastructure.

Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary

C-22 The comment wonders if the created wetland would be off-site, and whether the mitigation and monitoring plan would include the wetlands.

As shown on Figure 5, there would be two created wetlands located in the two proposed preserves associated with the project. Because a total of 0.899 acres of wetland would be created within the two preserve areas, the 0.377 acres of impacted wetlands would be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 as required by Mitigation Measure 8 and monitored by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3. These wetlands are included in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared in October 2006 and updated August 2009. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

C-23 This comment states that the signature on the mitigation acceptance contract is Ed Grossman, while the applicant/owner name is Jill Grossman, and questions whether the signature is legally binding.

Ed Grossman and Jill Grossman are listed as co-owners of the property, and a signature by either party would be considered adequate.


C-24 The comment requests conformance of the differences in acreage cited in document.

As the comment states, the Merced County Assessor’s Parcel map shows the project parcel to be 56 acres. However, following a survey of the site, the project site was found to be 57.97 acres, or approximately 58 acres. This is the more accurate number as used in the IS/MND. The 51 acres cited in the biology report represents the acreage as calculated via GIS of the lots as drawn by the engineer. The biological resources evaluation, as well as all other analyses in the IS/MND, assessed the entirety of the site.



C-25 The comment states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact due to growth.

The IS/MND Section XIII, Population and Housing, states that the proposed project would not result in substantial direct or indirect growth inducement. Implementation of the project would result in direct growth inducement. The future residential units as part of the project would result in approximately 120 new residents in the community. The new residents living within the project area would represent approximately 0.04 percent of the County’s 2008 population reported in the IS/MND (estimated at 249,116). If local population growth continues as projected, in 2050 the residents of the Lakeview Properties Subdivision project area would represent approximately 0.02 percent of the County’s total population. Such growth is consistent with the growth projects of the Merced County General Plan and the land use designation of the project area. The project site is located within the Snelling Specific Urban Development Plan (SUDP) – an area designated as suitable for urban development. The possibility of such development was therefore anticipated in the Merced County General Plan, which guides projected urban development to these specific areas. Thus, the project would be consistent with adopted County growth projections contained in the General Plan, and no significant impact would result.

Implementation of the project also would create short-term employment opportunities. While construction employment would be created during the project construction phase, the necessary employees could be expected to be provided by the local labor pool, without the importation of significant amounts of new labor based on an 11.7 percent unemployment rate reported at the time of IS/MND preparation.

A project could be expected to induce growth by removing an infrastructure barrier to growth. Infrastructure barriers can be both physical (e.g., lack of a road for access or sufficient sewage treatment capacity), or they can be institutional (e.g., the lack of some regulatory condition or capacity to allow development to occur). While on-site infrastructure (stormwater management, roads) would be constructed to serve proposed uses within the project site, implementation of the project would not create or improve any infrastructure serving areas outside of the project site or region.

The proposed project could also result in induced growth if it removed a policy or political (institutional) barrier to urban growth. The proposed project is consistent with County land use plans (Snelling SUDP), and no modification of County land use and development policies would be necessary. No direct or indirect population growth beyond that planned by the adopted Merced County General Plan is expected to result from project completion.


C-26 The comment states that decisions on proposed projects need to be based on cumulative impacts from all projects in the area and countywide. The comment states that an EIR should be required.

See responses to comments C-1 and C-12.


Letter D

D-1

D-2

E6/ L S/ ?gH9 L 6: ?4

, '5'-

t t

2Hg736L ?1 B

il$THIf,T

June l, ?il09'

fames Hellan4 Senior FlamfrMerccd County'Plaadng l}epf,rtsl!ilt}LZZWI'StrmMerced, Cslifornis 95340

Re: Mqior Subdivision Applicatiou No. 04014 -Ed Grossman * "Lakeview Properties"

-IS/I\dl,{D

DearMr. Holland:

The Merced Inigation Distric* ftfm) bns twieured thn above referenced application and

would like to eubrnit tlre frllowittg;sornment$:

The subjeot prop!rty ic nst withirr MID bfirndnrics as alludd to in the ISiIlfi:{D and

tro MlD-ftciiitis are tff+*ed byttrrr project. Elowever, there is aprivafe ditch uscd

ts.s!ffe ripasian us!r$ offthe Mercad Rlver where Frs-Etri$t!flg waftr rightr and flows

rssre ffis$ed rtemming from n lewzuit fiIe{ at the time E:rchequcr Dam wrs butlt'

The zubje* pr.op!rtywss n ptrt of F. rettlement known astlrc "'Co:nmllAgfooment'

datcd January ?:f , 19Z6. Ths owrcrff ct tlrar time werp Ftrallie Eost klartb and G.H-

Ivlrurficld *rui UotU are signntoriea df wid.agrwrncnt- Thesa wf,ter rightr,nur witft the

t*d ther*by affnrding aeco,ss to the tualdr flowing throueh thir private ditoh to the

current arxtfuarre ffim!rt gs $,etl as ttr! dounnsiream uscrs. The MID"g responsibility

ends afrErthe rvstcris divcrted orit offieMerced'Riv!r-

MID reeptctfulty fiique$s thatthe couilty re{uirq a* a, cqadition of approra[ the

following:

Tlrst mitig*tion meaeuree b! included in the conditiops to pmtect ttre Merced River

from any potentiat coutarninatipn gmersted onthe citc that cwld flswby eitlter

$rfaos bi zub-srrrfase migratiou to thc Mercod Rivsr (Ivfitigstior No' 12 of the

IS/I\,II'{D should sntiss this coadition).

l','lER*En tn. FLAf.{HIHG PEfiE lE

JL'N I {} ffi$$

serrrro Frraslss rno iffi,

T** IOilh'f,lroct Gglllornlt Stffi'OtrSf

rcp$Eng|nBe.ring(e09}7e2-#7s1/Fff({eo9}re*4176

Fi"li"-diHigirg O"el faOgt rza-9ft411fex (ebs) 72t-1457 llrrtdf,tion Operatlons {e09) 7e?-17e0l FAX (209} 722-1467


Letter D, page 2

IVIERCEF FLAHHIHG*fi. FAfiE I.7HE/LB/?tsHg 1.6: 14 2897?FL7LE

fi

-

Thask you for the opportrmity ta'smmeflt.on tlrc aUoYe referenced applic*ian . ff y*

luw any questions, piease contachme *72?-5761''

$incerslT,

RoryRandolFacilities Specinlist

cc: DanPope, Crentrel lvIBnEgErRobErt Acker, trirector ofFaoititics and $rparux

Hioh*m Hfei; Assi$tsilt Clrltl!rsl lrfffiffitr -'Wsts Rseou*ces gsgin!Eiling

Ron kice" As'sociate'gfigiasff - lllate;r Resources


Response to Letter D Commentor Merced Irrigation District (MID) June 1, 2009 D-1 The comment states that the project is not within MID boundaries, and no MID facilities

are affected by the project.

This comment corrects an erroneous statement made in the IS/MND regarding MID boundaries. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.

D-2 The comment requests mitigation measures to be included to protect the Merced River from potential contamination from the project. The comment also states that Mitigation Measure 12 in the IS/MND should satisfy this request.

As evaluated in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the created wetland to benefit water quality and implementation of Mitigation Measure 12 to implement NPDES permit requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would ensure that the discharges of stormwater would not adversely affect ground or surface water quality. With amendment of Mitigation Measure 12 as provided in response to comment C-14, prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, Mitigation Measure 12 would also require the project applicant to submit the design plans for the proposed detention basin and created wetland for County review and approval. Mitigation Measure 9 would require submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction prior to initiating any grading. With implementation of identified mitigation, the IS/MND concludes that potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Because this potential effect is fully evaluated in the IS/MND, no modification of the IS/MND would be necessary to respond to this comment.


Letter E

E-1


Letter E, page 2

E-1 cont.

E-2

E-3


Letter E, page 3


Response to Letter E Commentor Snelling Community Services District (SCSD) June 12, 2009 E-1 The comment states that there are 40-48 remaining sewer hook-ups, and that the SCSD

board wishes to ensure that at least 23 hook-ups are reserved for the 23 lots for future in-town residential uses and commercial infill. The comment states that development of the project would use 35 of the available hook-ups, leaving only 13 hook-ups available to future users. The comment also states that SCSD is in the process of establishing an ordinance that would restrict any developer from receiving more than 20 percent of available hook-ups.

As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, of the IS/MND, community wastewater transmission and treatment would be provided by the Snelling Community Services District, though the trunk sewer would need an extension to serve several lots. Mitigation Measure 13 would require extension of the sewer main prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure adequate service to the lots. As stated in the IS/MND and in the SCSD, there is existing capacity in the sewer system for development of the proposed project. How the remaining sewer hook-ups are used or delegated is not an environmental issue, but rather a political and legal decision. Since no new environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

E-2 The comment states that the Snelling wastewater treatment plant will be held at a maximum capacity of 75 percent, as opposed to the state average of 80 percent maximum capacity to ensure adequate service should a catastrophe occur.


E-3 The comment outlines legal proceedings regarding the sewer Can and Will Serve status for the proposed project.

Comment noted. The applicant will be required to provide proof of contracted wastewater treatment capacity prior to issuance of any building permit or recordation of a final subdivision map. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.


Letter F

F-1

F-2

HEI L S/ ?EBg L F: ?4 ?Hg??61?1, E

tvlnr$h 3S, ?SOP

F{effisd CruffiyFlsnning @Jsmm H$nfrnd, S'enior Flmnm2n32**h{'SSfistMer*ed, Califsrilin p534S

Rp: I,akeview Frnperties SuHiyisisil. Snclling

lT'lERf;En f,il. FLAHHIHfi FEfiE TB

Merced C*unty|flFarilt Bureau ru

-

RH[ilV[n

JUN $ l$$$

lrlsred Cnurf} fi*ning m$ *mrru$ity flevslrnment l]ept.

The Melc!d Counly FarnEurcan sub'ffiib thc fo[on'ingqucctims ontheproposed LûkeviEwhngcrE'es Subdivisiofi;

1. Hydmlogy and lrf#r Quality

Dft) Wb Frugrnm has MID, Citl of Mereed A UC $drrtod implmcutpd d $mendidthpy implement if?

Snhtlitrg is not in a ffood plnin?

In 1997 were the residffre in the Meffi!d Rivrr Vduy, iffilutrtrg $nelling, nborf to b!evasuffEd bccnrseof pstcffiial Aoodisg cmceru{?

lbnnk you forthe opporhmity ts coffinftrt

ElisffsltsffiFedrtauHxeeutive Fimctmr

I

W9r 723-ffi1 - FA)( (?fr9) 7Z?-3814 - 6*d $outh Highway 59 - P.O. Box 123? - Merced CA 95341E-mnil: [email protected]


Response to Letter F Commentor Merced County Farm Bureau (MCFB) March 26, 2009 F-1 The comment requests information regarding the MID, City of Merced, and UC Merced

program mentioned in the IS/MND.

After conducting three years of technical analyses and public involvement, the City of Merced and the MID cooperatively completed the 1995 Merced Water Supply Plan to address water needs through the year 2030 and recommend actions to provide a safe, reliable, and economical source of water supply. Since adoption of the 1995 plan, the University of California was developed in the study area and both a Groundwater Management Plan and Agricultural Water Management Plan were prepared during the environmental review of the campus. The conclusions of these studies changed the instream flow conditions on the Merced River and understanding of the area’s water resources; therefore, it was decided to undertake a second effort to update the 1995 plan that included comprehensive engineering, economic, and public education efforts. The result is the September 2001 Final Status Report of the Merced Water Supply Plan Update completed by MID, the City of Merced, and UC Merced (CH2MHILL 2001). More recently, the Merced Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan Update was released in July 2008. The purpose of the GWMP is to identify and implement a series of actions using modern technology and sound science to preserve and increase the quantity of groundwater resources in the Basin over the next decade and protect groundwater resources for future generations. The GWMP is a living document, and progress in implementing the plan will be periodically reviewed with the current understanding of groundwater levels, quality, and trends.


F-2 The comment requests clarification of flood plain information in the IS/MND.

As stated in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND, the proposed project lies in the historical floodplain of the Merced River—but the project site is located outside of a flood hazard area designed by FEMA. Some areas of Snelling do occur in the FEMA 100-year floodplain such as sections of Willow Street and Merced Street; however, the majority of areas located north of Merced Falls Road do not occur in the FEMA 100-year floodplain, including the project site (FEMA 2008). While there may have been flooding concerns in the past, because the project site is outside of the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain, as stated in the IS/MND, no significant impacts due to flood hazards would result with implementation of the project, and no mitigation would be necessary.



Letter G

G-1

G-2

G-3

Juns l{, gS0S

To: James Hofland

tfprced Gounty Flanning and Gommunity Developmenttrepartment

Re: Lakeview Properties $ubdivision l$lifit{D

I nttandad the JHne '10, 2009, $nclling lrlAG meating at whlchtlme the Sounty Pfnnnlng prer*nted nn Inltlal Study Report tothoee in attendaftee. Of concern to me is the Ganevaro dltchrvhich runs tftrough the proBerty on the southern boundary.

The CanGvaro ditch hq* hen in u*e since the late {850's andhas served many different ownenn includlng the Henderson Parhbasehall fleld to wlrich we ftood irlgate out of this ditch.

lfrygolf, elong wlth flve other property ownelrr ahare thc urEtnrfrom thls dltch to inigah Sfll arrcc of land that lies wwt of theproperty. Grnps that are flood irrigated includo pantum, alfalfa,oatc, $udan grfrss, and oliv+ trees.

ily main concem ls po*tihh problsmg cr+ated by havlng asuhdivialon nesr the ditch. Concorns and questions f,re:

{. Doe$ ths Gounty require s developer to pipe an oFsndttch?

I. Woufd the Deparfinent of Fish and Game sffow the dltchto be piped?

3. llllhat kind of fencelbarrier would be requlrcd on the!at!mcnt to provcnt tretpaaslng?

4. lf problems occur due to trerpartlng or ohetructfngwakr florwn udro would the userc csntsst fora*si*trnse?

$, Woufd the developer or also the home owner bo liablefor the increased llabillty on t{re ditch?

At pre*ent ule have had limited prublems on tfie Ganevero ditchrugarding ascess and no lose of water.

ET sSSd SHINHVId 'Ut UIXHII"I B TT T5ET6fi6 Ffr :3 T EAHI /ff T I3E


Letter G, page 2

illr. Grffisman has cooperated with the uaerc allowing us tomaintain the flowt, k*aping the ditch clef,n, and water off of tfierof,d- With the potslbllity of *f home* in the area, thecomplications ahead arc of much contern.

Thnnlt you,

Jirn Areenio

ET SSSd SNTHNV-Id 'nt ff33u3F{ BTTT9ET6ET FT:9T FEBd/HT/gE


Response to Letter G Commentor Jim Arsenio June 14, 2009 G-1 The comment states that the Canevaro ditch on the project site is currently used to irrigate

croplands, and with development of the proposed subdivision, the commentor is concerned regarding continued water availability. The comment questions if the County would require piping of the open ditch, and whether CDFG would allow the ditch to be piped.

The ditch described above is a man-made irrigation ditch, which originates from the Merced River, enters the project site at the far southeasterly corner and exits the property at the western site boundary, and traverses adjacent parcels west of the site before passing under La Grange Road and emptying into a nearby field. The ditch has no hydrologic connection to the wetlands scattered through the project site. The COE has determined that the ditch is not jurisdictional and the CDFG does not consider the ditch a regulated stream. However, negotiation between the project applicant, County, and CDFG indicate that the CDFG considers the ditch to be important habitat requiring that the ditch be maintained in its present open condition. Regarding piping of the ditch, see response to comment C-19.

The irrigation ditch is also part of a lawsuit settlement known as the “Cowell Agreement” dated January 27, 1926. Water rights resulting from the settlement run with the land, thereby affording access to the water flowing through this private ditch to current and future owners. This irrigation ditch is not hydrologically connected to jurisdictional wetlands, and water rights and access would be retained.


G-2 The comment states concerns regarding trespassing or obstruction of water flow in the ditch, and requests a point of contact should such conditions occur.

See response to comment C-20. Regarding needed maintenance or access to the ditch, or the fencing of the ditch, by the beneficiaries of the ditch, these are legal matters of property rights and the commentor should contact an attorney to clarify these questions. Since no new environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

G-3 The comment states concerns regarding liability surrounding the ditch.

Liability concerns regarding the ditch are not an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA since they are not effects that would result in a physical impact on the environment, rather they are a legal issue and the commentor should contact an attorney to clarify these questions. Since no environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.


Letter H

H-1

H-2

H-3

H-4

H-5

nE/lSI?HBs L6:24 283726171Bh{ERCED f,O. FLAI{NIHG

{ rUsc - ffi r{ Ed@au w Fu I | | a u $ }",,svr{ su I | | fl u$,,

{!]-lhlf/$l uof srq pqns Eelusdord rnalAa{el

tld gff;e 6fr0e/bugqsFl' r{r' Fssr! uJ. o*@Futrl lsq h

,sleu' | ! E lil qqp@gsgeBs noqre/llr ] zaulil ElRl Eu u Efl

FAGE 1.4

gft xog o dtse4g pBsleFl ggse

zoulpen eêl$ pue Euuofl

'$ursf,uoo Jno lo uolleJsprsuoo rc1nofi {ueqt

'Ipunuuroc Jno Jo+ qcleu pooF B aq oluoes dlpar 1ou ssop I 'eq ol siesdde lueuldo;anep qql leul..loe4 uBqrnqns, aFrel sql uaql JoqlEr clnpllnq

;enper6 E !Bs ol ta;ard ptnom lnq 'BsrV 6ullleu$ e$ ut s!snoq rnsu Jo Eutpmq e$ ot lceho $)u op !n

'sluaplssr

sleJru{ sc!ru!! ol pepuslu! lou tBnA 11 '>ped ^llunujuJoo

er{l puH llai,\ sE uo[Blndort d;qewvrol slElpsrJulldql etue$ ol psle+Js rern uelsits rei as luaJng aq1 ;d;qsu/hol ettf ep5ul Eol lueie^ Aueu +q1lo euJos uo

pltnq ol ut6sq gusplssJ e{rtll Euol e.6u;lpug }o smCIs 4 1ue$ tueu4sgJ} slEE/rA luaJrni rno lo uoFuedxe eql.ro1r{ed ol pe.rtnber aq rsdopnap Ertl ll4 'uqlecgpde }o surll sr.ll le aHEIE E q leqt\ +o e6ep*arad utelroce redoFrep e ea;6 ol6uruuep fiJurrruuroo rl}H,rsuil u! pu! sHgilnbe eJou txpas plnofi\ lt 'sdnloct{ uelsAsJenAss filunuuoc Sululeus.r aql p lF lsoule ua{et ssq lrsfo.rd cql lF{$ lget rql q p'lnx u! pessFlppe laN

$t^t3ls^s 3?lÛ3s/s3l1l ]lln

'Elusplcde lua sJdol $uFl$ Eugum*rp uslilppe pue $suE uJnl Jo uollepotttoooe arnbar Hno,yr pue spssds qElq lE p!lsAe{

sl Fo, str.ll 'peoH eiltrJ psrJslAl uo sursouoo ArJrs asnes flnoAr uotcl4pqns eq1 Bugxe pue FqrapeolJJErl ro;ce4uoe !oueueuleu pue fuenpp $E ilerh se '|*eplqaa usplsal 'uolilppe ul 'sdp

^ltep EuryErx

(a)gOl ol 0I trtnil a.leqnd[ue q1m '1emu+ff ul cu[e4lemqFlq ul BEEsr$ul legueltqns e B$nec gpn rcaford stUIOI J JVHI/NOIIVITIOdSNVHI

'ue;d ;eraua$ 4aq1 u! !pro troqs u! uopepdod fuepnp eql lo Eulgnop E !pnpur loup;p r{1unoc aql uppsa srB aM 'sr!r4cae1 pue selllto!t rol se$ueqc 1afipnq lueouuufile a.ltnb6.r plnoltl t{cttt/l

'{sa6e,rane sresA stxos 6umnop} uoBetndod luspnp ulasearsut luuclJ[uFls E $lElrfl'loCIqc$ Euttpu$lusJJnc flfl CIl suapnls 00! rlt gg rxo4 ppe lll/vr ssurotl it11rue1-e16ure e6re1 gg pq1/t1o111 ueql eloul $! ll

slooH3ssf3tAuts crund

'&Hnruuroo rno q A1;pnb a.rB iood r{pee.4e all ol ppg ol enulluoo plno/u tusruurgualua pus'Eugddoqs 'lJorrt JoJ ualol qEnorql elnuuoo ol peil plno,rn uolslAtpqns aul lo Blugprssr !Joril ro oCI! of 0z

{qeqod leql lcel eql 'oslv .Surpe.r6ap ARuecflufitt e.le Aeql pue 'sre slcoford Eulutu,r luarrnr sql se rE ffool Eul$eulep se Fnf eq plnot\ !lls etg uo uolicn4suoc puE s6u;1;e1 6u1p;xe sql Butreap 'prE/ruol o6 ppoqsil ueaut lou $eop leql 'rp ueslo lol snlul$ *epeulnlleuou.. B u!{pealle s1tre1ea aq} souls 'OSdVnfS qi!,r[1qlglos lou pnorn tc!foJd Blql !srnog JO 'peAralmrftualrpns tou sEM ltltpnb lte o1pedul e llelnunc sql

,t.l.ltvno ulv

:lcsfq,rd FaousJeleJ a^(IqE er,ll Je+'u(}lleJepso an;1e6qq pals6$W"aH dope ol lrraul.rnort og Su[eFl $uJscuoc pue $]usurxm Sunns||o] 6ql Iilqns ot elll Hncr 6M

{lHklJSl uolslqpqns satusdoH f$elAsqF-l :nH

.ldafl Squueg 'oxl FaflJsyrlJFUUFId r{}fusspuElloH EerilEr

fiililr 'F I nunr:frt

;P*fqng:nlE(I

:tu:utsu


Letter H, Page 2

$nelling, *A S53SS

gT 3$Vd SHINNVId 'F3 g3ilt3l*l H Tt TsAT6BE FE:gT 6sf ia/gT/58


Response to Letter H Commentor Donna and Steve Martinez June 14, 2009 (via email) H-1 The comment states that the cumulative impact to air quality was not sufficiently evaluated

in the IS/MND. The comment states that clearing the existing tailings, construction of the site, and commuting from the additional residents in the subdivision would contribute to poor air quality.

Regarding cumulative impacts to air quality and the contribution of increased traffic to air quality impacts, see responses to comments C-1 and C-3.

H-2 The comment states that the proposed project would result in a significant increase in students projected to attend the Snelling School.

See response to comment C-8.

H-3 The comment states that the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in traffic and would create additional safety issues.

See responses to comments C-6 and C-7.

H-4 The comment states that the proposed project would take most of the remaining sewer system hookups, and questions whether the developer would be required to pay for expansion of the waste treatment plant to expand capacity.

See response to comment E-1.

H-5 The comment states that a gradual buildup of the community is more desirable than a large suburban tract as proposed by the project.

Since no environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.


Letter I

I-1

I-2

EEIIB/?8ES L6: 14 2Eg7?6171, B l"lERfiED Cfl. FLANHIHG PAfiE 81.

ffi

From:To:Datn:$ublect:

"Hunter, $usan' c$ussn. [email protected] FcJh*f la nd @go . m srced,Ea, u$ >

fill$/?S0g 4;41 FMLakeview Froperties $ubdivision H/MND

This e-msil is to register rny ssrtlmentE of the Lakeview Fraperties$uhdivision Frqect in $nelling. As a lnng tirne rssident of this firsfl

tSS+ y*ars) | feel that there ar! nurnerous fionnerns brought fofih hy thecitizens of Snelling that have either nnt been adequstely addressed srhave not been addre*eed at all,

We, the regidente, are the ones that will hsve to live with whateverdecision is made by the Planning Depafiment. I feel that this prolectwill dnly benefit onc per$on and that person is Mr. Grosernan. Th!negative impacte of this FroJeet wlll be feh by many for many years andwill hinder the legitimate grouth of Snelling. The Lalteview projectwarrts to tie up the most of the remalnder of the sewer hook-ups in thetown itself.

We have all seen what short-sigffed planning has done to the area innorth Merced- the Eellevue Ranch development in is a perfact exampl+.soI am aeking thet this dtcisbn not be a harty onc. Addrcss allconcErns priar to making )6ur d!cision. The Plannlng nepartment will beheld accountablefor whatever declsion is made as is only right, I atltthat you lisien to the voise of the people.

RespectFully sq bm itted,

Susan Hunter

2457 Emma St.

Sndling, CA


Response to Letter I Commentor Susan Hunter June 15, 2009 (via email) I-1 The comment states that the proposed project would tie up most of the remaining sewer

hook-ups.

See response to comment E-1.

I-2 The comment states that the Planning Department should not make hasty decisions and address all concerns prior to action.



Letter J

J-1

BEILB/?B8g LE: ?4 2Bg?261718 r{ERf;ES f,N. FLAHNIHG PAGE B?

From:To;Dste:$uhject:

Ron <sFrn rcht@reoplepc-snm F*iholland @ss, rnertrsd .cs. us >

s/151?$0S 3:40 trMLakeview Properties suhdivinisn l$MNn

County Flanning triv.

I am again*t the abov+ project for a lot of reaaons. some of them are!

Its not Frudentto allow any developer to us! up ffis$t of the remaining availahle sewer connection$ so

the long tiffie property ounrers that have purchaeed stuhs b there lots wunl be able to use them becauge

of some Greedy, Selfieh. delveloper that just wants to fill hia pockets.

Th6 devetoper was told he coulcl bulld hls own sewer plant, but he probley don't have the money to do that

EO

what makes us think hs even hae the funds to build one house, let alone f,S? | beleive the only rceson he

isFursuing this it to sell to some delveloper thEt does-

With the ecsnomyas bad as it is and the track record for the Developers in Merced You should be very

carelulof approving any projects unless the paraon hae a flawlere pa+t performance recond-

Ron Lorenz Snclling Resident.


Response to Letter J Commentor Ron Lorenz June 15, 2009 (via email) J-1 The comment states that it is not prudent to allow the proposed project to tie up most of the

remaining sewer hook-ups. The comment also states that Merced County should be careful of approving a project that may not have enough funds to be developed.

Regarding the allocation of remaining wastewater treatment capacity, see response to comment E-1. Regarding the care that Merced County should evidence in considering the project, since no new environmental issue was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.


Letter K

K-1

K-2

K-3

EE/t Bl?EBg L6:24 IB9??617LE }4ERTED f;fl. PLAHNIT-{fi FAGE E3

Rf;f,Hlltil

takeview Estatss {P{AfiS4-fl 1 4}

Mr. Holland,

At tho Jrme Id $nelling [,IAC meeting there wss a& if,cr!dible amomt ofquestiotrs ard conccrns prt farth in regads to the l^qkevlslv hoperties Sdbdivisionffi/l\'IhlD. It rrms elearly stafnd by Mr. I,c$'i$ thnt duo to the aruouat of isflrts (&at couldnot be ansrlrffd with rupported fafits) the proje* rcquircd n grcater arnount of fttthe,tsndy. ldr. Lewis alsa s'tded *hat ftc Lalcevicw ftuputies prcjerr twalfl na be an theagonda for thc Jurs ?4s me*ing that was origfualty rcbeduled.

It has just raccnrly coms to my attelrtiou tbst O*isafff, NEurf,ilEn has sffit a$amowmerncnt ilrat the t akeview F,states pmj!st is skted md back on tln age,nda f.or theJunp 24n meeting. Why is this? It was also stded tlrd Mr. Orossilnan wislrss tn yyotk withthetv{ACtoresolvetlremissnos. AlthougfuIf6etthstwurkingwithklt.Grossmffiisrequircd andr*essm;i, it is arntde point udil ftUher sfirdisebyerprts and gnFIR isprodun!d as odginally diseussed abd plasnd bythe Snclling h,IAC and agrwdupm bylvlr. lewis.

It will be *tse denriment to the Comrrrmity of Snelling as a rrlfrole if the coutttyproceeds with &i$ project without thesemwh needEd $hrdi!$. The futum impastr weressvrEtr fully addressdd or ansti'ersd in rcgads to just some ofthe following safety isguss:nrade, naffig the ditch, air quallty, and the school.

The communityha$ just been able to fecl thsttheirvoices are h*ard andthd$ecormty is willing to work togetbcr unilaterdly for wht is bmt for the citizens snd landsrrrusrs of distrist 4. To procoed withoui regad ts tbs rrnderstafldiug amd agreemens atttre $nelling MAC Jrme lOe meeting would be caprioious to $(y sfftethn lcn$t,

s i r rceretr , , f f i f i fu l -Robert Ry*n Jr.

Suelliilg flitiaenPO Box 31Snelling f,A9$369?s9-563-638S


Response to Letter K Commentor Robert Ryan Jr. June 15, 2009 K-1 The comment states that the June 10th Snelling MAC meeting showed there were many

issues to be addressed, and that the project would not be on the June 24th meeting agenda.


K-2 The comment states that the project was returned to the June 24th meeting agenda. It further states that an EIR should be issued for the project.

The proposed project was not reviewed at the June 24th meeting. Regarding the need for an EIR, see responses to comments C-12 and C-26. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary. The Merced County Planning Commission will weigh the views expressed in the comment in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed Lakeview Properties Subdivision project.

K-3 The comment states that several safety issues were not fully addressed, specifically, roads, traffic, the ditch, air quality, and the school.

For impacts to roadways and traffic, see response to comments A-1, C-6, and C-7. For air quality impacts, see responses to comments C-1 and C-3. For impacts to schools, see response to comments C-8 and C-9. For safety questions on the ditch, see response to comment C-20. Since no new significant or more severe environmental impact not previously evaluated in the IS/MND was raised by the comment, no modification of the IS/MND is necessary.


REFERENCES

Active Living Research. May 2009. Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes. Prepared by Tracy E. McMillan, Ph.D. Viewed at www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf on October 23, 2009.

CH2MHILL. September 2001. Merced Water Supply Plan Update Final Status Report. Prepared for City of Merced, Merced Irrigation District and University California, Merced. Accessed at http://www.mercedid.org/_images/groundwater_merced.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). December 2, 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map Merced County, California and Incorporated Areas Map Number 06047C0100G.

Marin Storm Water Group (MSWG) April 2007. Storm Water Management Program. Developed by Stantec and provided to Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region.

Stillwater Sciences. October 2004. Technical Memorandum #5 Mercury Assessment of the Merced River Ranch. Prepared for CALFED ERP Sacramento, California.

Wondjina Research Institue. April 23, 2001. Preliminary Report of Testing of the Grossman Construction Property in Merced Co, California for Aggregate Materials, Metals and Mercury.


This page intentionally left blank.


CHANGES TO TEXT OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

This chapter sets forth all substantive changes to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that occurred after publication of the IS/MND. Such changes update or correct misinformation or errors in the text noted by Merced County, as well as changes made in response to public and agency comment on the IS/MND. Within this chapter, additions to text are indicated by underlining; deletions of text are designated by strikethrough. The section references are ordered as they appear in the IS/MND. If an IS/MND section does not appear in this errata section, no corrections or modifications were necessary. There would be no new, avoidable significant effects, nor are mitigation measures or project revisions necessary to reduce the significance of identified impacts; therefore, no further modification of the IS/MND would be necessary.

Correction to IS/MND page 19:

Mitigation Measure 2: Comply with SJVAPCD Requirements and Recommendations During project construction, the project applicant and contractors shall comply with the following measures. Additionally, a note shall appear on the final subdivision map notifying purchasers of individual lots of applicable rules as set forth below, and as they might be amended, of the duty to comply with the requirements of this mitigation measure and the regulations of the SJVAPCD.

A. Comply with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII Dust Suppression Measures (described above); Rule 8021, preparation of a Dust Control Plan and; Rule 3135, Dust Control Plan Fee.

B. Comply with SJVAPCD’s Rules 4901 and 4902 regarding wood burning devices and natural gas-fired water heaters.

C. Comply with SJVAPCD’s additional measures 1 through 6 as follows to further reduce ozone precursors. The project applicant shall implement the following:

1. Energy efficient design including automated control systems for heating/air conditioning and energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, lighting controls and energy-efficient lighting in buildings, increased insulation beyond Title 24 requirements, and light colored roof materials to reflect heat.

2. Planting of deciduous trees on the south and westerly facing sides of buildings. 3. Providing low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emitting and/or high efficiency water heaters. 4. Sidewalks and bike paths throughout as much of the project as is possible and should be

connected to any nearby open space areas, parks, schools, commercial areas, etc. 5. Natural gas/propane lines and electrical outlets should be installed in patio areas to

encourage the use of gas and/or electric barbecues. 6. All housing units should include as part of the purchase an electric lawn mower and

electric edger.

D. Comply with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that may apply, including: Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

Correction to IS/MND page 24: Figure 5 shall be updated with the following Figure:

Lakeview Properties Revised ISFigure 5

Sensitive Biological HabitatsSOURCE: Vollmar Consulting, September 2009



HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT EVALUATION

VIIIa) Less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. To evaluate the potential for mercury to be present in the tailings on property owned by the project applicant, the applicant retained Wondjina Research Institute to test tailings for the presence of heavy metals among other constituents. Sampling was conducted at five sample points within the tailings. None of the data points were on the site proposed for the Lakeview Properties Subdivision, though they were near (immediately to the north of the site). The results of this analysis indicated that no mercury above detection levels (4 parts per billion) was present. The combination of extensive testing by Stillwater Sciences at several sites in the project vicinity, as well as previous testing for the dredge tailings located immediately to the north of the site, provides evidence that no mercury would be mobilized by the proposed project. The project proposes to level and grade the existing tailings and add imported clean topsoil to complete the building lots and pads, and there will be no need for extensive excavation outside of trenching for utility lines and drilling for the 35 water wells. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the project includes no excavation (other than for utility lines) that would expose the fine sediments within and at the bottoms of the tailings piles near bedrock; rather the project proposes to level the existing tailings and cover them with clean, imported top soil.


Mitigation Measure 12: Comply with County NPDES BMP requirements The project applicant and all successors in interest shall protect the Merced River from any potential contamination generated on the site that could flow by surface or subsurface to the Merced River by implementing Best Management Practices as required by the Merced County Public Works Department pursuant to the County’s NPDES permit, and any such additional measures as may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall be required to submit plans of the proposed detention and wetland treatment facilities to the Merced County Public Works Department for review and approval. Plans at a minimum shall include detention basin location, size, inlet and outlet details, and specified lining and construction materials. This will allow for engineering review of the designs to ensure that polluted water is sufficiently detained and treated without impacting groundwater quality.


XVIg) Less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 14. The Merced County Department of Public Works, Roads Division generally requires roadway improvements with project implementation to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, including dedication of right-of-way and public utilities easements. While these are not necessary to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant, these will be added as conditions of approval to lessen those adverse impacts that may affect roads and streets. The following specific measures would be required to meet County Roads Division or Caltrans requirements:


1. Satisfy Improvement Level 1 requirements as set forth in Chapter 16.08 of the Merced County Code which generally includes dedication of right of way and public utilities easements, roadway construction and installation of matching pavement along existing roadways, street lighting, storm drainage system and underground or relocated utilities and irrigation facilities.

2. Release and relinquish all abutter’s rights of access to and from the entire Merced Falls Road frontage of Lots as designated by Merced County Department of Public Works.

3. The owner shall dedicate on the final map 15 feet of road right of way, for a total road right of way width of 80 feet, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement along the La Grange Road frontage of the property.

4. The owner shall dedicate on the final map 20 feet of road right-of-way along the Merced Falls Road frontage of the property to provide a total road right of way width of 80 feet. A 10-foot wide public utility easement shall be dedicated along all public road rights of way.

5. The minimum easement width for sewer or storm drain pipelines located outside of the road right of way shall be 15 feet.

6. The internal streets shall be designated as a Court and named to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. The internal streets shall be designed and constructed per Drawings ST-06B and ST-10 of the Merced County Department of Public Works Improvement Standards and Specifications.

7. The proposed internal rights of way to provide access to the internal lots shall be improved to Merced County Department of Public Works standards and named to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. A gated entry shall be placed if the road is to be privately maintained. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions shall be provided to address maintenance of a private road, gate, and landscaping as applicable.

8. The storm drainage basin(s) shall be delineated on the final map. The storm drainage system shall be designed pursuant to the Merced County Department of Public Works Storm Drainage Manual.

9. All lot grading shall be completed, all underground improvements shall be installed and aggregate base material an all new streets shall have been rough graded and compacted, prior to the issuance of any building permits. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Merced County Department of Public Works that no occupancy shall take place until such time as all improvements are completed.

10. The Developer/Applicant shall provide centerline striping for those new roads which intersect the existing peripheral streets.

11. The Developer/Applicant is advised that he/she may be obligated to comply with Regulations for stormwater runoff issued by the EPA on November 16, 1990 (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 122, 123, and 124). For information and direction, contract the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction Activity Storm Water Hotline at (916) 341, 5537, e-mail: [email protected], or visit their website at www.swrcb.ca.gov.

12. As part of the site improvement/preparation process required for recording a final map, the applicant shall construct a walking path on the north side of Merced Falls Road that runs from the southeast corner of proposed lot #25, as shown on Figure 5, Sensitive Biological Habitats, September 2009, westwards to the intersection of Merced Falls Road and La Grange Road. The applicant shall also provide for the installation of a street light at this intersection. The walking path shall be aligned to avoid additional impacts to oak trees on the project site beyond those outlined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and detailed in Mitigation Measure 7. The exact alignment, dimensions, and surfacing of this walking path shall be approved by the Merced County Department of Public Works Road Division.


Implementation of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to transportation and circulation; Mitigation Measure 14 would be necessary to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 14: Comply with local and state requirements The property owner/applicant shall comply with Merced County Department of Public Works and Caltrans requirements as set forth as conditions 1-11 12 above. Monitoring:

Merced County Department of Public Works, Roads Division

Timing of Monitoring Activity: During Final Building Inspection.

Compliance Measure: Confirm that the requirements of the Merced County Public Works Department and Caltrans have been implemented.


This page intentionally left blank.

Documents

Response to Comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated