Atwater City Council
October 9, 2023

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 63

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

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

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

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

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 64

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

Water
The City provides water service for residences, commercial establishments, manufacturing plans, institutional facilities, and parks within the city limits. The City operates nine (9) wells to provide water to its customers. All wells are located within the City except for Well #21, which is located at the northeast corner of the Castle Airport facility adjacent to the U.S. Federal prison. 28 In 2016, the City produced an average of eight million gallons per day (mgd).

The system has a capacity to pump 15,388 gallons per minute (gpm) and two (2) million gallons of storage. As of 2016, the system serves approximately 6,800 residential connections, 520 commercial connections, six (6) industrial connections, and 45 irrigation connections. 29 The water is distributed through a grid system of pipelines ranging from four (4) to 14 inches in diameter. The system supplies the City with drinking water and provides water for fire protection through fire hydrants.

The City has an overall Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that allows for remote monitoring and control of the water system via radio control. This system enhances quick response times to problem situations and fathers real-time, accurate data. The system can accurately determine water production quantities. To protect groundwater resources and minimize the future need to import water from other sources, the City and MID are engaged in efforts to reduce water consumption. New Atwater connections are metered, and per State law, unmetered connections will be metered in the future. 30 The city’s water supply is obtained from the Merced Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin and is regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act by the Merced IrrigationUrban Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSA). The Merced Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), adopted in December 2019, was developed to address the subbasin’s critical overdraft and bring it into balance by 2040. The Subbasin is heavily reliant on groundwater. Of note, the City and MID are working to reduce water consumption. The City has met Assembly Bill No. 2572 requirements for water meter installation in all residences built in/after 1992; such requirements seek to reduce consumption. Implementation of the Merced Groundwater Subbasin GSP will ensure that groundwater supply is sustainability managed.

In an effort to ensure future growth on the eastern side of the City , in 2016 the City negotiated a settlement with the private Meadowbrook Water Company to relocate their “service area” from the area east of Buhach Road, north of State Highway 99 located within the City Sphere of Influence, to an area north of Santa Fe Drive and south of Cardella Road further to the northeast (the Meadowbrook Water Company was sold to Cal American Water Company in late 2016).
28 City of Atwater, Drinking Water Quality Report, July 2018 https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf 29 City of Atwater; EMC Planning Group, Inc. (2017). 2014-2043 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. Accessed June ++7, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/city-of-atwater-2014-2023-5th-cycle-housing-element/ 30 City of Atwater, Drinking Water Quality Report, July 2018 https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2017-CCR.pdf

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 65 Table 4-7 shows Atwater General Plan policies related to groundwater use that would potentially influence implementation of the GSP. The GSP anticipates that implementation of the GSP will reinforce Atwater’s General Plan goals in addition to the groundwater quality monitoring and remediation described therein.

Table 4-7 Atwater General Plan – Seismic and Public Safety, “Flooding” and “Dam Inundation Areas” GOAL CO-1. Support efforts to monitor and remediate existing groundwater contamination within the planning area.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Atwater General Plan, most of the city of Atwater lies outside the 100-year floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Seismic and Public Safety Element addresses flood hazards and dam inundation areas through several goals and policies (Table 4-8).

Table 4-8 Atwater General Plan – Seismic and Public Safety, “Flooding” and “Dam Inundation Areas” GOAL SF-4. Avoid damage to persons and property resulting from flooding.

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 66

4.10.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Because the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the developer is required to prepare a SWPPP (Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for the Project to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, runoff resulting from the Project would be managed in compliance with the approved grading and drainage plans. Thus, compliance with existing regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and AMC in addition to approved plans would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 31 This plan is intended to serve as a tool for planning and phasing the construction of future domestic water supply infrastructure for the projected buildout of the City of Atwater, in accordance with the General Plan.

According to these plans, the City uses groundwater wells as the sole source of supply; the City does not use any other water sources including surface water, storm water, recycled water, or desalinated water. As such, groundwater should be viewed as a sustainable resource. The City’s existing system facilities include nine (9) wells with a total rated pumping capacity of 15,388 gpm. The water is distributed through a grid system of pipelines ranging from four (4) to 14 inches in diameter. While the City does not have a Groundwater Management Plan, it is actively managing its water system and use in an attempt to maximize the resource and minimize the need to import surface water. The City has experienced steady growth and in turn, has developed additional groundwater supplies. Along with the adoption of the UWMP, the City adopted its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which consists of four (4) stages to allow the City to reduce its water demand in addition to several restrictions and prohibitions on end users.

Because the Project has been previously accounted for and analyzed within the General Plan, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system and supplies should be adequate to serve the Project, and the Project would thereby not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Given that the subject project is a drainage basin, no water will be required. 31 City of Atwater (2018, 2019 rev.). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed June 7, 2023, https://www.atwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Atwater_UWMP-2015-March-2019-Final.pdf

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 67 However, in the case that it is determined that the City does not have adequate water supply for the Project, the Project may be conditioned by the City to contribute a “fair share” toward additional facilities such as construction of a new well. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. Lastly, per State law, new water connections are required to be metered which is expected to reduce consumption. In addition, the landscaping shall be subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) which requires new development to meet water efficiency standards. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project site can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppressing aquatic vegetation growth.

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

The Project site is relatively flat and mostly paved due to previous development, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. Development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance during construction is largely caused by the use of water. Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

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

Together, the controls and BMPs are intended to limit soil transportation and erosion. As such, the likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and approved grading and drainage plans as described under criterion a). With these provisions in place, the impact on soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes the construction of a stormwater basin, pump station, and drainage improvements, which will be required to comply with City regulations and will be reviewed by the City.

Compliance with regulations and approval by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in flooding on- or off-site. In addition, the Project will decrease the rate/amount of surface

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 68 runoff since the Project will improve drainage within the City of Atwater, specifically in the city’s Drainage Zone R.

For this reason, the Project would have a less than significant impact. iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned, the Project would be subject to the review and approval process through the City of Atwater. Through the review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and approved grading and drainage plans as described under criteria a) and c)-ii. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not result in exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not exceed capacity or contribute to additional sources of polluted runoff. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the construction of the proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces, the Project will not impede flood flows since the proposed stormwater basin and drainage pipelines will increase the amount of runoff/flood flowthat Drainage Zone R can accommodate. The stormwater drainage system will be slightly alternated as part of the Project since the Project is designed that runoff collected in the basin will discharge into the Merced Irrigation Canal. However, given the existing stormwater drainage systems surrounding the site, future development of the site is not expected to substantially change the topography of the site and therefore would not be expected to impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not cause significant impacts. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06047C0405G, dated December 2, 2008. 32 Zone X is a flood hazard area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard and one (1) precent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one (1) square mile. In addition, the City, inclusive of the Project site, has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking and has a relatively low probability of shaking. Seiches are unlikely to form due to the low seismic energy produced in the area. Therefore, as a low-risk area, the Project would have a less than significant impact as it relates to the risk release of pollutants due to project inundations. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
32 FEMA. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Accessed June 7, 2023, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=255%20E%20Bellevue%20Rd%20Atwater%2C%20CA%2095301#searchr esultsanchor

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 69 Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA and is therefore subject to the 2019 Merced Groundwater Subbasin GSP. As described under criterion (b) above, the Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. In addition, the GSP anticipates that implementation of the GSP will reinforce Atwater’s General Plan goals in addition to the groundwater quality monitoring and remediation described therein. Therefore, based on compliance with such plans, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 70

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

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

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently vacant with no improvements and is within the Atwater city limits. The Project site is generally surrounded by commercial use, residential use, and vacant land. Properties to the south, east and west are planned and zoned for residential and commercial uses, and properties to the north are planned and zoned for residential uses. An irrigation canal is located adjacent north to the Project site. The proposed pump station and basin will discharge into this irrigation canal.

4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community is associated with new, intersecting roadways, or new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses. The Project site is currently vacant with no improvements and has a planned land use designation for general commercial and is consistent with surrounding properties in the area which are commercial use, residential use and vacant land.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is generally surrounded by commercial use, residential use and vacant land. Properties to the south, east, and west are planned and zoned for residential and commercial uses, and properties to the north are planned and zoned for residential uses. An irrigation canal is located adjacent north to the Project site. The proposed pump station and basin will discharge into this irrigation canal. The Project site is currently vacant with no improvements and has a planned land use designation for general commercial and is consistent with surrounding properties in the area which are commercial use, residential use and vacant land.

Circulation System
No new streets are proposed that would result in physical division of an established community. Future development on the Project site would be accessible by the existing circulation system, including existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems, and would not require the development of new roadways or permanent roadway closures.

Utility Infrastructure

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 71 The Project proposes a new detention basin and a new storm drain pump station on two (2) parcels. The Project also proposes a storm drain interceptor from the basin, Along Brownell Street, to the existing 36” drainage pipe between Fortuna and Terri Drive, as well as parallel line on Terri Drive and Mary Lane. The Project is designed to serve Drainage Zone R (“tributary area”) and runoff collected in the basin will discharge into the Merced Irrigation Canal. Based on the analysis, implementation of the Project would add to the utility infrastructure. Overall, the Project would not result in the physical separation of the established community. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and AMC. Through the entitlement process, the Project is reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Overall, the entitlement process would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, AMC, and any other applicable policies. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 72

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

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

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of CEQA, mineral resources are land areas or deposits deemed significant by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). Mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and metallic and nonmetallic deposits, including aggregate resources. The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the Project site is in the “MRZ-3 sg” zone, which are “areas containing known or inferred concrete aggregate resources of undetermined mineral resource significant (sand and gravel)”. 33 In addition, the City of Atwater, inclusive of the Project site, is not within a CalGEM-recognized oilfield and there are no oil and gas wells on-site. 34

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

Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
33 California Department of Conservation. (2009). Mineral Lands Classification. Accessed on May 7, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc 34 California Department of Conservation. Well Finder. Accessed on May 7, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 73 No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 74

4.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X

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

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

The Atwater General Plan Noise Element and Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 8 – Health and Safety outlines policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. Specific to residential uses in the city of Atwater, 55-60 dB is an acceptable level of community noise exposure. Anything above 75 dB is considered to be generally unacceptable. 35 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
35 General Plan, Figure 13.1 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Development, 1990

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 75 The Project site’s existing noise environment is impacted by various noise sources. As previously discussed, the Project site is bounded by residential land uses to the south, east, and west. Associated noise from residential uses includes vehicles and typical neighborhood noise (i.e. talking, car doors shutting, dogs barking, etc.), which are usually minimized by trees and landscaping. The Project site is also bounded by commercial uses to the west. The Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Castle Airport, nor is it within the Airport’s CNEL noise contour. More significant sources of noise include the vehicular traffic on the arterial roads, East Bellevue Road and Shaffer Road.

Construction Noise Exposure
The Atwater General Plan Noise Element and Atwater Municipal Code Chapter 8 – Health and Safety outlines policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. Specific to residential uses in the city of Atwater, 55-60 dB is an acceptable level of community noise exposure. Anything above 75 dB is considered to be generally unacceptable.

Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.0.

Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Of all construction phases, it is anticipated that grading would produce the loudest noise.

Consequently, for the purpose of this noise assessment, one of each construction equipment listed in the CalEEMod run (Appendix A) is included in the construction noise modeling. According to existing and anticipated land use within and around the Project site, the baseline and receptors that are analyzed in the RCNM are shown in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9 Receptors and Baseline Analyzed in the RCNM
Location Land Use Daytime Baseline (dBA) Evening Baseline (dBA) Nighttime Baseline (dBA) **
15 feet to the south Residential 60 60 55
50 feet within site* Commercial 65 65 65
* Since the site would not be development concurrently, the analysis assumes that future development could happen approximately 50 feet from future developed commercial units on site. ** Noise Baselines are based on Section 37-50.180 – Performance standards Short-term construction noises include traffic noise generated from transporting construction equipment and materials and construction worker commuting. These activities would raise noise levels near the site. According to CalEEMod, construction of the Project site would require 37 offroad equipment and generate a total of 622 worker trips and 86 vendor trips. According to modeling of the FHWA RCNM Version 1.0, construction noise generated from the offroad equipment is estimated to be 99.7 dB Leq if all equipment was used at the same time. Ambient noise from construction activities would cease upon completion of construction.

Regarding impact assessments related to CEQA, CEQA assesses the Project’s impacts on the environment instead of the environment's impact on the Project. The proposed Project would not generate outstanding noise, the existing ambient noises would not cause a significant impact under CEQA.

4.13.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 76 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less than Significant Impact. Noise generating activities of the Project would include traffic noise and stationerysource noise, such as operations and construction as described below. It is not anticipated that Project would generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards, given the type of development proposed (i.e., basin and pump station).

Operational Noise Exposure
The operation of a stormwater basin is not noise-generating; however, a pump station can produce noise from the operations of machinery such as compressors, pumps, fans, and cooling equipment. The pump station is surrounded by commercial uses to the south and west, vacant land to the east, and the irrigation canal to the north.

The nearest sensitive land use are single-family residences 150 feet north of the site across the canal. As such, it is expected that the operational noise generated by the pump station will be minimal and most likely not audible to any residential uses.

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

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space-recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels. The nearest sensitive land uses are single-family residences to the east and west of the Project site along Brownell Street, Terri Drive, and Mary Lane. Although the nearby residential uses would experience elevated noise levels from construction, these activities would be temporary and would generally take place in accordance with AMC Section 8.44.050 which regulates permissible hours of construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, Saturdays and Sundays.

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

Although the Project would result in increased ambient noise level at the Project site, compliance with the General Plan policies and AMC requirements would result in the Project’s compliance with applicable standards. Overall, the Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to noise. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Ground borne vibration may result from operations and/or construction, depending on the use of equipment (e.g., pile drivers, bulldozers, jackhammers, etc.), distance to affected structures, and soil

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 77 type. Depending on the method, equipment-generated vibrations could spread through the ground and affect nearby buildings. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of development. Further, construction or operation of the Project would not involve equipment that would generate substantial groundborne vibration of ground borne noise levels. As discussed under criterion project-generated stationary noise sources would be regulated by the AMC. Through compliance with the AMC, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest public airport to the Project site is the Merced County Castle Airport which is east of the site. According to the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012) and the Castle Airport Master Plan (2011), the Project site is located outside of the airport's Airport Influence Area and is therefore not subject to land use compatibility policies. 36 37 Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
36 County of Merced. (2021). Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed on June 7, 2023, https://www.co.merced.ca.us/406/Airport-Land-Use-Commission 37 County of Merced. (2011). Castle Airport Master Plan. Accessed on October 27, 2021, http://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/env_docs/castle/CAED/Castle_AMP_full.pdf

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 78

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide an example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units. A key consideration in evaluating growth inducement is whether the activity in question constitutes “planned growth.”

4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The nature of the proposed Project, construction of a storm water basin, would not result in an increase in population. The Project is not proposing a use that is not proposing new homes, nor will it result in additional infrastructure or amenities that would induce growth. In addition, the Project is generally consistent with the General Plan, thus, the Project would not cause unplanned growth in the city. No impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 79 No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant with no structures. The site does not contain any existing housing or residential uses. Since the site does not currently provide housing, future development of the Project site would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing. No impact would occur because of the Project.

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 80

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within Atwater city limits and thus, would receive public services provided by the City of Atwater and will be subject to fees to provide such services, as applicable. Services provided are described as follows.

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in the city are provided by Cal Fire; the City also has a mutual aid agreement with the City of Merced that was established in 1993. The City of Atwater operates two (2) fire stations: Station 41 at 699 Broadway Avenue and Station 42 at 2006 Avenue Two. In 2017, the City updated the Municipal Service Review and cited a response time of less than seven (7) minutes for 90 percent of responses. The Project would be reviewed by Cal Fire and is subject to regulations and standards such as the California Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance, and building use.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services within the city are provided by the Atwater Police Department. The Police Department currently operates from the main police station located at Bellevue Road. The Police Department divides the city into two (2) sectors, north and south. The Police Department reviews all projects to ensure that building and site designs consider utilization of crime prevention features and techniques.

Schools

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 81 Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Atwater Elementary School District and the Merced Union High School District. Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” Parks and Recreation
Park and Recreational facilities are overseen by the Atwater Recreation Department. According to the Atwater General Plan, the City’s park standard is 3.37 park acres per 1,000 population. To mitigate any impacts to park and recreational facilities, residential projects may be conditioned by the City to pay the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax in addition to any requirements of the Quimby Act.

4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be served by Cal Fire. The City’s fire stations are within two (2) miles of the Project site. The Project’s proximity to existing stations would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. In addition, Cal Fire will review the Project for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the structures proposed on site.

For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur. ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be served by the Atwater Police Department. Due to the nature of the Project, construction of a basin and pump station, the proposed Project will not result in an increase in population and will have minimal on-site employees visiting the site. Therefore, there would be no increased demand for police protection that would result in the need for new or expanded government facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
iii. Schools?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the Project, construction of a basin and pump station, the proposed Project will not result in an increase in population. Therefore, there would be no increased demand for schools that would result in the need for new or expanded government facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.
iv. Parks?
No Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. The Project proposes a basin and pump station, which will not result in an increase in population.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 82 Therefore, there would be no increased demand for parks that would result in the need for new or expanded government facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact. v. Other public facilities?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the Project, construction of a basin and pump station, the proposed Project will not result in an increase in population. Therefore, there would be no increased demand for other public services, such as courts, libraries, hospitals, etc., that would result in the need for new or expanded government facilities.

Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 83

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreational facilities are overseen by the Atwater Recreation Department. According to the Atwater General Plan, the City’s park standard is 3.37 park acres per 1,000 population. To mitigate any impacts to park and recreational facilities, residential projects may be conditioned by the City to pay the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax in addition to any requirements of the Quimby Act.

4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Because of the nature of the proposed Project, a basin and pump station, there would be no increased demand for recreational services associated with the Project. There are no permanent employees or residents that would result from the construction of this facility. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the physical condition of existing recreational facilities. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. Given that the proposed Project will not cause an increased need for recreational facilities (as described in criteria a) above), the Project will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. In addition to this, the Project is not proposing additional recreational facilities, thus the Project will have no impact in this regard.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 84

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently fully developed and paved. The proposed basin and pump area has access to East Bellevue Road via an existing 340-feet, north-south, private dirt road. The Project also proposes a storm drain interceptor from the basin and pump area, along Brownell Street, to the existing 36” drainage pipe between Fortuna and Terri Drive, as well as parallel line on Terri Drive and Mary Lane.

CEQA Guidelines
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB743), traffic impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed Project would create on California roads.

If the project adds excessive automobile travel onto roads, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

To implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by adding Section 15064.3. According to Section 15064.3, VMT measures the automobile travel generated from a proposed project (i.e., the additional miles driven).

Here, ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles such as cars and light-duty trucks. If a proposed project adds excessive automobile travel on California roads thereby exceeding an applicable threshold of significance, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

Among its provisions, Section 15064.3(b) establishes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Specifically, Section 15064.3(b) (1) establishes a less than significant presumption for certain land use projects that are proposed within ½-mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor. If this presumption does not apply to a land use project, then the VMT can be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 85 In the case that quantitative models or methods are not available to the lead agency to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) permits the lead agency to conduct a qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis may evaluate factors including but not limited to the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and construction traffic.

Lastly, Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
SB 743 Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.

The Technical Advisory includes screening thresholds for agencies to use in order to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. • Screening Thresholds for Small Project. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact. This threshold is based on a CEQA categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,00 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. • Map-Based Screening Threshold for Residential and Office Projects. Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. • Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Thresholds. Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. • Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development. Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 86 reducing VMT. Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

According to the Technical Advisory, lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types.

4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all project level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the General Plan, AMC, and other policies regarding traffic. In addition, the proposed Project does not include new roadway constructions and the Project is expected to generate minimal traffic. Given that transportation impacts are minimal, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan (including the RTP), ordinance, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. SB 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of LOS. Due to the nature of the Project, it is not expected that the Project will generate vehicle trips. During operations, it is expected that 2 trucks may visit the site a maximum of once every other month to provide maintenance. In addition, the Project does not generate additional residences or permanent employees, thus would not result in induced development. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. Because the Project is not proposing nor will it be required to construct any roadways or other off-site public improvements, nor does it propose to construct incompatible uses that would interfere with traffic circulation, it can be concluded that the Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, the Project site is subject to review by the City to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that Project construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through standard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 87

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
section 5020.1(k), or,
X
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.5.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on May 30, 2023, there are no known local, state, or federal designated historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) on the Project site. While there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CULT-1 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential historical resources discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 88 were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site and its resources have not been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to Section 5024.1. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources of significance to a California Native American tribe discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 89

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project proposes a basin and pump station, which will be connected to water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services provided by the City of Atwater and may be subject to fees to be provided such services. The Project would be served by private companies for the provision ofsolid waste collection and disposal and electricity and natural gas, as needed. Each utility system is described below.

Water
Water supply, usage, and services are described in Section 4.10.

Wastewater
The City provides sewage disposal and treatment using a pipeline system, pump stations, and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility. The WWTP is located west of State Route 99 on Bert Crane Road and handles an

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 90 average flow of three (3) million gallons per day (MGD). Based on the Atwater Operations and Maintenance Manual, the design average dry weather treatment capacity for the treatment plant is six (6) MGD.

Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Allied Waste, and then transported and disposed in one (1) of two (2) Merced County Landfills. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is responsible for managing and implementing regional solid waste disposal services, known as the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (RWA). The RWA owns and operates the two (2) regional landfills within Merced County and administers integrated waste management contracts and grants on behalf of member jurisdictions.

Stormwater
Stormwater services are described in Section 4.10.

Natural Gas and Electricity
Major electrical transmission lines run through the northern and southern portions of the city. Electrical and natural gas service is largely provided by PG&E, primarily from fossil fuel and hydroelectric sources. State Route 99 contains a major natural gas main and crude oil pipeline. The gas main pipeline has an offshoot line running directly north through down, beginning approximately at Atwater Boulevard and First Street.

4.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of a new storm drainage system (i.e., basin, pump station, and pipelines). Environmental impacts caused by the proposed storm water drainage system are analyzed in other sections of this IS. Regarding other utilities, it is expected that the Project will be served by existing utility infrastructure near the site since the Project is an infill site surrounded with existing commercial and residential development, As such, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Through the entitlement review process for future development, the city and responsible agencies would review the Project to ensure compliance with applicable connection requirements. Compliance would ensure that the Project would not cause significant environmental effects related to utilities and service systems. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10, the City’s long-term water resource planning is addressed in the City’s 2015 UWMP. According to these plans, the city uses groundwater wells as the sole source of supply; the city does not use any other water sources including surface water, storm water, recycled water, or desalinated water.

As such, groundwater should be viewed as a sustainable resource.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 91 The Project is constructed for drainage operations, which would require minimal water usage, e.g., for purposes of occasional cleaning. In addition, the Project would require less water usage than the use (i.e., commercial) anticipated in the General Plan. Because the Project has been previously accounted for and analyzed within the General Plan, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system and supplies should be adequate to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would not result in insufficient water supplies.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The Project is constructed for drainage operations, which would generate minimal wastewater, e.g., for purposes of occasional maintenance. In addition, the Project would generate less wastewater than the operations (i.e., commercial) anticipated in the General Plan. Because the Project has been previously accounted for and analyzed within the General Plan, it can be presumed that the Project will not result in insufficient wastewater capacity. As such, the Project would have no impact.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The Project is constructed for drainage operations, which would generate minimal solid waste. In addition, the Project would generate less solid waste than the operations (i.e., commercial) anticipated in the General Plan. Because the Project has been previously accounted for and analyzed within the General Plan, it can be presumed that the Project will not generate solid waste to exceed the existing capacity of the city’s landfill infrastructure. In addition, the Project is required to comply with state and local law which include management and reduction statutes and regulations to ensure that solid waste is handled, transported, and disposed accordingly.

As such, the Project would have no impact.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The Project would be required to comply with state and local law which include management and reduction statutes and regulations to ensure that solid waste is handled, transported, and disposed accordingly.

Through compliance with local and state law, it can be determined that future development would also comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As a result, no impact would occur because of the Project.

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 92

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility or
lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located on a relatively flat property within the city limits and is in an area planned for urban uses, including residential development. According to the Atwater General Plan, grass and brush lands are the most likely places for wildlands in Merced County; however, Atwater lies outside of these areas and as a result, the risk of wildland fire is low. 38 Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Atwater as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); rather, the site is within an “area of local responsibility” as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk.39 Lastly, the Project would be required to be developed and operated in compliance with all regulations of the current California Fire Code.

4.20.2 Impact Assessment
38 City of Atwater, California. (2000). City of Atwater 2000 General Plan. 39 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on June 7, 2023, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 93 If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project would not substantially impair access to the existing roadway network. Safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be provided in addition to adequate access for emergency vehicles.

Circulation and emergency vehicle access have been reviewed by the City and it has been determined that the Project would be suitable for such circulation and access. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair any emergency response plan and no impact would occur as a result of the Project. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not in an area that is subject to strong prevailing winds or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Further, the site is not identified by Cal Fire or the City as a VHFHSZ. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The City inclusive of the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The Project site is currently vacant with no improvements. The site is served by existing infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, and other utilities.

Future development of the site would be reviewed and conditioned by the City for compliance with applicable standards, specifications, and codes related to the installation and maintenance of infrastructure. Such infrastructure would be typical for urban uses and would not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The Project site is located on relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not subject to downslope, downstream following, or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structure to significant risk and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 94

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

4.21.1 Impact Assessment
e) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 95 f) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Projectrelated impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). The Project is generally compliant with the AMC and General Plan, which indicates that the anticipated impacts from the Project are, to an extent, compliant and previously analyzed within the General Plan. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
g) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.21.2 Mitigation Measures
None required.

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 96 5 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency
City of Atwater
750 Bellevue Road
Atwater, CA 95301
(209) 357-6370
Greg Thompson, Deputy City Manager/ Community
Development Director
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of Planning
Sheri Provost, Senior Associate Planner
Shin Tu, AICP Candidate, Associate Planner

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 97 6 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix A: CNDDB Occurrence Report
Downloaded from the California Natural Diversity Database dated May 26, 2023.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19070
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G5
S4
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: BREEDS IN GRASSLANDS WITH SCATTERED TREES, JUNIPER-SAGE FLATS, RIPARIAN AREAS, SAVANNAHS, AND AGRICULTURAL OR RANCH LANDS WITH GROVES OR LINES OF TREES.

Micro: REQUIRES ADJACENT SUITABLE FORAGING AREAS SUCH AS GRASSLANDS, OR ALFALFA OR GRAIN FIELDS SUPPORTING RODENT POPULATIONS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 1690 Map Index: 69604 EO Index: 70377 Element Last Seen: 2007-06-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2007-06-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-07-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35010 / -120.55762
UTM: Zone-10 N4136510 E716330
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 170
Acres: 0.0

JUST SOUTH OF CANAL CREEK, WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH SANTA FE ROAD, SOUTH OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE AND EAST OF ATWATER.

Location:

NEST TREE IS FOUND WITHIN A GROVE OF MATURE EUCALYPTUS TREES, AT THE EASTERN END. COUNTY AVENUE TWO IS ABOUT 100 YARDS TO THE SOUTH OF THE NEST TREE.

Detailed Location:

NEST TREE IS A EUCALYPTUS; SURROUNDED BY AN IRRIGATION CANAL, SANTA FE RAILROAD, AND SANTA FE DRIVE TO THE NORTH. FALLOW FIELDS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.

Ecological:

SWHA PAIR ACTIVITY AROUND NEST FIRST OBSERVED IN MAY 2007; 1 FLEDGLING OBSERVED IN NEST ON 28 JUN 2007, WITH FEMALE PERCHED ON NEST EDGE AND MALE PERCHED 50' TO THE SW.

General:

Owner/Manager: MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Occurrence No. 1759 Map Index: 83231 EO Index: 84236 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.30219 / -120.56613
UTM: Zone-10 N4131174 E715712
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 29, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 145
Acres: 0.0
Location: ALONG MCSWAIN ROAD (SR 140) ABOUT 0.3 MI EAST OF N GURR RD, AT MCSWAIN SCHOOL.

IN EUCALYPTUS GROVE ABOUT 250 FEET EAST OF PERSIMMON WAY. BLACK RASCAL CREEK TO THE NORTH & BEAR CREEK TO THE SOUTH. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

Detailed Location:

NEST IN TALLEST EUCALYPTUS TREE IN GROVE BORDERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF RESIDENTIAL, ROW CROP, SCHOOL, & PASTURE. VISIBLE DISTURBANCES INCLUDE TRAFFIC ON SR 140, AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES & SCHOOL YARD CHILDREN.

Ecological:

ONE ADULT OBSERVED SITTING IN NEST WITH ONE ADULT SOARING CLOSE TO NEST TREE ON 14 MAY 2008. ASSUMED TO BE IN INCUBATION STAGE.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Atwater (3712035)) Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 1760 Map Index: 83232 EO Index: 84238 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32504 / -120.54987
UTM: Zone-10 N4133746 E717088
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16 (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 155
Acres: 0.0
JUST NORTH OF HWY 99, AT ASHBY RD & TRINIDADE RD INTERSECTION, JUST NW OF FERGUS, 4 MI NW OF MERCED POST OFFICE.

Location:

Detailed Location: CENTER OF SECTION 16. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

NEST TREE IN ROW OF EUCALYPTUS TREES ALONG TRINIDADE ROAD. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF ROW CROP, RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ORCHARD, AND PASTURE. VISIBLE DISRBANCES: AGRICULTURE RELATED ACTIVITIES.

Ecological:
1 LIGHT MORPH & 1 DARK MORPH ADULTS OBSERVED IN TREE EATING PREY THAT WAS CAUGHT IN FIELD DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HWY 99 ON 14 MAY 2009. NEST WAS IN INCUBATION STAGE AT TIME OF OBSERVATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 2683 Map Index: A0387 EO Index: 101947 Element Last Seen: 2016-04-13 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2016-04-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-06-08
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28872 / -120.54212
UTM: Zone-10 N4129734 E717881
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 147
Acres: 18.0
ALONG BAILEY AVE ABOUT 1 MILE EAST OF GURR RD, ABOUT 1.5 MILES W OF MERCED MUNICPAL AIRPORT, WEST OF THE CITY OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION GIVEN AS "TREES AT 3014 BAILEY AVE" AND APPEARS TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF THORNTON LATERAL AT BAILEY AVE.

Detailed Location:

RESIDENCE WITH "PINE AND EUCALYPTUS TREES AT END OF DRIVEWAY" SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS 2 SWHA PERCHED IN A REDWOOD/SEQUOIA. ADDITIONAL NEST TREES MAY BE ALONG SOUTH SLOUGH & BEAR CREEK. AG LIKELY USED FOR FORAGING.

Ecological:

RESIDENT REPORTS 5 PAIRS SOARING ABOVE FIELDS & "NEST[ING] IN TREES ON PROPERTY" IN APR 2016. ALSO, JUVENILES SEEN WITH ADULTS IN SPRING OF 2015. THOUGH REPORT IS PLAUSIBLE, BIRD NUMBERS & SPECIFIC NEST INFORMATION IS QUESTIONABLE; NIMBY?
General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19120
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S3S4
Other: CDFW_WL-Watch List, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: OPEN GRASSLANDS, SAGEBRUSH FLATS, DESERT SCRUB, LOW FOOTHILLS AND FRINGES OF PINYON AND JUNIPER HABITATS.

Micro: EATS MOSTLY LAGOMORPHS, GROUND SQUIRRELS, AND MICE. POPULATION TRENDS MAY FOLLOW LAGOMORPH POPULATION CYCLES.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 60 Map Index: 67366 EO Index: 67534 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-04 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-04
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-12
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36272 / -120.54352
UTM: Zone-10 N4137942 E717542
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: NORTH OF W BELLEVUE ROAD AND JUST EAST OF CANAL CREEK, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location: LOCATION MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM COORDINATES AND MAP.

Ecological:
1 ADULT OBSERVED FLYING/FORAGING OVER OPEN HAY FIELD ON 4 OCT 2006. CURRENT/SURROUNDING LAND: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES WITH HIGHLY DISTURBED LAND. VISIBLE DISTURBANCE: LONG TERM MANIPULATION OF LAND.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
Element Code: ABNSB10010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S3
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_LC-Least Concern, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOWGROWING VEGETATION.

Micro: SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Habitat:

Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 812 Map Index: 64827 EO Index: 64906 Element Last Seen: 2006-05-25 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2006-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-06-07
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.27390 / -120.50677
UTM: Zone-10 N4128172 E721057
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35, SE (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 18.4
Location: SE END OF MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ON THE SW EDGE OF MERCED.

BURROWS ARE FOUND IN TWO DISTINCT AREAS, ABOUT 0.2 MILE APART. BOTH ARE LOCATED AT SOUTHERN END OF AIRPORT RUNWAY.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF DISTURBED (MOWED) NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND.

General: 6 ACTIVE BURROWS (WITH 6 ADULTS) OBSERVED ON 25 MAY 2006.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Occurrence No. 876 Map Index: 67347 EO Index: 67514 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-06 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-06
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35908 / -120.53123
UTM: Zone-10 N4137567 E718642
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 03, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF BELLEVUE ROAD AND 0.5 MILE EAST OF FRANKLIN ROAD, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY CONTAINING NUMEROUS DETENTION BASINS; LAND IS HIGHLY DISTURBED/MAINPULATED.

Ecological:

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED AT BURROW ON 6 OCT 2006 AND DURING TWO OTHER VISITS TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 877 Map Index: 67348 EO Index: 67516 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-24 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-24
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33611 / -120.56332
UTM: Zone-10 N4134944 E715864
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 08, SE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.25 MILE WEST OF GURR ROAD AND 0.4 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE ONE, SE OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND RUDERAL FIELD.

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 24 OCT 2006 AND DURING ONE OTHER VISIT TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 988 Map Index: 70100 EO Index: 70964 Element Last Seen: 2007-07-16 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2007-07-16
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-10-03
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29057 / -120.51700
UTM: Zone-10 N4129998 E720101
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 26 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 154
Acres: 28.0
Location: MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, SW OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT SURROUNDING BURROW SITES CONSISTS OF DISTURBED ANNUAL GRASSLAND DOMINATED BY PERENNIAL

RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE), YELLOW STAR THISTLE (CENTAUREA SOLSTITIALIS), CURLY DOCK (RUMEX CRISPUS), AND SPRING VETCH (VICIA SATIVA SSP. SATIVA).

Ecological:

General: 9 INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED ON 16 JUL 2007.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Element Code: ABPBXB0020
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G1G2
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_EN-Endangered, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

Micro: REQUIRES OPEN WATER, PROTECTED NESTING SUBSTRATE, AND FORAGING AREA WITH INSECT PREY WITHIN A FEW KM OF THE COLONY.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 65 Map Index: 13166 EO Index: 24755 Element Last Seen: 1971-05-09 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1971-05-09
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-01-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29715 / -120.58380
UTM: Zone-10 N4130574 E714161
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 30 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 135
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 1.8 MI ESE OF HWY 140 & APPLEGATE RD INTERSECTION, 2.6 MI S OF HWY 99 & BUHACH RD INTERSECTION, W OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 140; 4.5 MILES WEST OF MERCED." COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTH BUHACH ROAD AT HIGHWAY 140" & "WEST MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

Detailed Location:

BLACKBERRIES IN IRRIGATED PASTURES. COLONY APPROXIMATELY 1/25 ACRE. DOMINANT SURROUNDING LAND USE WAS HALF ALFALFA AND HALF RESIDENTIAL, NO SUITABLE NESTING HABITAT IN 2014. 4.5 MILES MEASURED FROM HWY 99 & HWY 140 INTERSECTION.

Ecological:

ABOUT 1500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 9 MAY 1971 BY DEHAVEN; PRESUMED NESTING, AREA TOO INACCESSIBLE TO REACH. 0 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 18 APR 2014; UNCLEAR IF THIS SURVEY WAS AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE 1971 LOCATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 633 Map Index: 97347 EO Index: 98620 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-26 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1933-04-26
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26050 / -120.51959
UTM: Zone-10 N4126655 E719959
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 02 (M)
Accuracy: 4/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
Location: ABOUT 2.6 MI SW OF HWY 59 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, 5.4 MI NNW OF HWY 59 & SANDY MUSH RD, SW OF MERCED.

LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS "THREE MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO AREA THAT APPEARED TO HISTORICALLY HAVE WATER (HARTLEY SLOUGH) BASED ON A 1918 USGS TOPO MAP FOR ATWATER QUAD.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT ONLY DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDED TO DETERMINE STATUS OF COLONY.

Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 100 NESTS OBSERVED ON 26 APR 1933.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 634 Map Index: 97352 EO Index: 98624 Element Last Seen: 1933-05-19 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-05-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28790 / -120.50908
UTM: Zone-10 N4129719 E720811
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 2 MI NW OF HWY 59 & VASSAR AVE INTERSECTION, 2.9 MI W OF HWY 99 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, SW EDGE OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO CANALS JUST SW OF MERCED CITY PROPER. CANALS IDENTIFIED USING 1917 & 1947-48 USGS TOPO MAPS FOR MERCED & ATWATER QUADS. EL CAPITAN CANAL & MERCED LATERAL WERE POSSIBLE CANALS FOR COLONY LOCATION.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAILS ALONG CANAL. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). VERY LITTLE TO NO HABITAT VISIBLE IN AERIAL PHOTOS. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTHWEST MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 1500 NESTS OBSERVED ON 19 MAY 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 635 Map Index: 97354 EO Index: 98627 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-27 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-04-27
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.31620 / -120.48409
UTM: Zone-10 N4132919 E722944
PLSS: T07S, R14E, Sec. 19 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
ALONG BEAR CREEK, JUST E OF HWY 59 & SANTA FE AVE INTERSECTION, 2.4 MI NW OF HWY 140 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "NORTH OF MERCED." FEATURE MAPPED ALONG BEAR CREEK ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF MERCED. CREEK HISTORICALLY BOUNDED THE N SIDE OF MERCED (USGS 1917 & 1948 TOPO, MERCED QUAD).

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). AREA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN HEAVILY DEVELOPED SINCE TIME OF DETECTION BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRBL PORTAL; SITE "NORTH MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 250 NESTS OBSERVED ON 27 APR 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 639 Map Index: 97371 EO Index: 98652 Element Last Seen: 2014-04-19 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2014-04-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-28
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035), Yosemite Lake (3712044), Winton (3712045) County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.37760 / -120.49598
UTM: Zone-10 N4139704 E721709
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 25, SW (M)
Accuracy: 2/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 190
Acres: 0.0
JUST E OF HWY 59 & NEVADA ST INTERSECTION, ABOUT 0.6 MI NNE OF BREEZE RD & UTAH ST INTERSECTION, N OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO PROVIDED LOCATION IN PORTAL. ENTRANCE TO MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA VISIBLE IN GOOGLE STREET VIEW. COLONY DATA STORED IN THE UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA."
Detailed Location:

HABITAT WAS TRITICALE BEFORE BEING HARVESTED ON 22 APR 2014. DISTANCE TO STORED GRAINS WAS "100-500" METERS. DISTANCE TO WATER WAS OVER 100 METERS.

Ecological:

ABOUT 2,000-2,500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 19 APR 2014; BEHAVIOR CLASSIFIED AS SINGING, BREEDING, AND COLONY QUIET (INCUBATION INFERRED). COLONY WAS DESTROYED DUE TO HARVEST ON 22 APR 2014.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN, PVT
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
Element Code: AMAJA03041
Federal:

State:

Endangered
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4T2
S2
Other:

General: ANNUAL GRASSLANDS OR GRASSY OPEN STAGES WITH SCATTERED SHRUBBY VEGETATION.

Micro: NEED LOOSE-TEXTURED SANDY SOILS FOR BURROWING, AND SUITABLE PREY BASE.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 23 Map Index: 42082 EO Index: 42082 Element Last Seen: 1999-08-20 Occ. Rank: Poor Site Last Seen: 1999-08-20
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1999-12-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36666 / -120.60137
UTM: Zone-10 N4138247 E712407
PLSS: T06S, R12E, Sec. 36 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 286.7
Location: LIVINGSTON CANAL, FROM APROXIMATLY BELLEVUE ROAD TO WINTON WAY, ATWATER.

Detailed Location: ALONG CANAL AREA, MERCED COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

Ecological: AREA IS FLAT WITH SANDY SOILS.
1 OBSERVED IN BACKYARD, THEN TRAVELED WEST ALONG CANAL, 1999. 1 ADULT, 2 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN THE EARLY 1980'S, OVER A MONTH, FREQUENTING AN EXPOSED CONCRETE PIPE OPENING; AREA PREVIOUSLY BORDERED BY AG AND SOME RESIDENTIAL NOW HOUSING.

General:

Owner/Manager: MER COUNTY
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 8 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Element Code: ARAAD02030
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3G4
S3
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable, USFS_S-Sensitive General: A THOROUGHLY AQUATIC TURTLE OF PONDS, MARSHES, RIVERS, STREAMS AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, USUALLY WITH AQUATIC VEGETATION, BELOW 6000 FT ELEVATION.

Micro: NEEDS BASKING SITES AND SUITABLE (SANDY BANKS OR GRASSY OPEN FIELDS) UPLAND HABITAT UP TO 0.5 KM FROM WATER FOR EGG-LAYING.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 321 Map Index: 67349 EO Index: 67517 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36083 / -120.55443
UTM: Zone-10 N4137708 E716581
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: CANAL CREEK, 0.3 MILE WEST OF FOX ROAD AND 0.3 MILE NORTH OF BRADSHAW ROAD, CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT WITHIN CANAL CREEK CONSISTS OF HERBACEOUS VEGETATION. SURROUNDING LAND CONSISTS OF LOWDENSITY AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS HIGHLY MANIPULATED FOR AGRICULTURE, DAIRY, AND CASTLE AFB.Ecological:

General: 1 JUVENILE OBSERVED ON THE BANK OF CANAL CREEK ON 13 OCT 2006.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Element Code: ICBRA03030
Federal:

State:

Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General: ENDEMIC TO THE GRASSLANDS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CENTRAL COAST MOUNTAINS, AND SOUTH COAST MOUNTAINS, IN ASTATIC RAIN-FILLED POOLS.

Micro: INHABIT SMALL, CLEAR-WATER SANDSTONE-DEPRESSION POOLS AND GRASSED SWALE, EARTH SLUMP, OR BASALT-FLOW DEPRESSION POOLS.

Habitat:

Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 181 Map Index: 36115 EO Index: 31112 Element Last Seen: 1997-02-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 1997-02-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.34685 / -120.55031
UTM: Zone-10 N4136165 E716987
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 0.0
Location: JUST NW OF THE INTERSECTION OF FOX ROAD AND CARDELLA ROAD, 2 MILES EAST OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTED OF A ROADSIDE POOL, ADJACENT TO ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS, SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

General: 1 ADULT COLLECTED ON 13 FEB 1997 (CASIZ #111133).

Owner/Manager: PVT
Occurrence No. 305 Map Index: 46094 EO Index: 46094 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35203 / -120.50373
UTM: Zone-10 N4136848 E721098
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 01, SW (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 17.8
ABOUT 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, FROM INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 59 AND TAHOE STREET TO 0.2 MILE SOUTH ON HIGHWAY 59.

Location:

Detailed Location: CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59. SAMPLE POOLS 5A, 5B, & 5B1.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND; SURROUNDING LAND USES WERE AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING AT TIME OF SURVEY.

Ecological:
8 COLLECTED IN 2000 (CASIZ #154910). 2 POOLS, EACH WITH 100 ADULTS, AND 1 POOL WITH 10 ADULTS OBSERVED FEB 2001; 16 COLLECTED (CASIZ #154907, 154908). 13 COLLECTED ON 28 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162474, 162487).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 10 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 306 Map Index: 46095 EO Index: 46095 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-11 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-11
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33240 / -120.50482
UTM: Zone-10 N4134668 E721059
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 11, SE (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 31.4
ABOUT 5 MI EAST OF ATWATER; ALONG HIGHWAY 59, FROM 0.2 TO 0.7 MI SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 59 AND BELCHER AVE.

Location:

Detailed Location: SURVEYED POOLS WERE IN THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND SURROUNDED BY LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURE & GRAZING AT TIME OF 2000-01 SURVEYS. SPEA HAMMONDII, LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS, & INDICATOR PLANTS ALSO FOUND. AIR PHOTOS SHOW DEVELOPMENT IN SE PORTION OF OCCURRENCE.

Ecological:

THOUSANDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS & 10 IN 1 POOL, NOV 2000; 24 COLLECTED (IN CAS). HUNDREDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS, FEB 2001; UP TO 51 COLLECTED FEB & DEC 2001 (IN CAS). 7 COLLECTED ON 11 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162476).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
Element Code: ICBRA06010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2G3
S2S3
Other: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General: SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

Micro: WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 196 Map Index: 47479 EO Index: 47479 Element Last Seen: 2000-11-21 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2000-11-21
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2002-03-25
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35963 / -120.50374
UTM: Zone-10 N4137692 E721075
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 02, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF WEST BELLEVUE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 59.

Detailed Location: POOL ALONG CULVERT LOCATED ON WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF A SWALE. SURROUNDING AREA IS RURAL / GRAZING LAND.

General: 21 NOV 2000: 500 ADULTS AND 500 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN SAMPLE POOL 6A.

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 11 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
Element Code: PDCHE042P0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2
S2
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: ALKALINE VERNAL POOLS. 3-115 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 4 Map Index: 36774 EO Index: 31771 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2013-06-03
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24727 / -120.62010
UTM: Zone-10 N4124958 E711081
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 18.0
Location: NORTHWEST OF WHERE VENTURA ROAD GOES FROM E-W TO N-S, 6 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

RANGE ROAD/VENTURA ROAD ALSO NAMED JOHN SANDERS ROAD. SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

ALKALI GRASSLAND WITH SHALLOW VERNAL POOLS. ASSOCIATED WITH HORDEUM MARINUM SSP. GUSSONEANUM,

NEOSTAPFIA COLUSANA, AMARANTHUS ALBUS, FRANKENIA GRANDIFOLIA, CRYPSIS SCHOENOIDES, CRESSA TRUXILLENSIS, ERYNGIUM VASEYI, AND DISTICHLIS SPICATA.

Ecological:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS SEEN IN 1987. 100'S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2009. 100,000S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2011. 1989 TAYLOR COLLECTION AND 1994 & 1995 STUTZ COLLECTIONS ALSO ATTRIBUTED HERE. ONE OF THE MOST OUTSTANDING ATPE OCCURRENCES.

General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Occurrence No. 7 Map Index: 36783 EO Index: 31780 Element Last Seen: 1926-06-18 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1926-06-18
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1998-04-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26480 / -120.53386
UTM: Zone-10 N4127099 E718682
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 03 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 140
Acres: 0.0
Location: 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS 1926 COLLECTION BY HOWELL. OCCURRENCE EXTIRPATED ACCORDING TO D. TAYLOR.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 12 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
Element Code: PMALI040Q0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2, BLM_S-Sensitive
General: MARSHES AND SWAMPS.

Micro: IN STANDING OR SLOW-MOVING FRESHWATER PONDS, MARSHES, AND DITCHES. 0-605 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 75 Map Index: 83260 EO Index: 84280 Element Last Seen: 2010-05-25 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2010-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-30
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32415 / -120.54171
UTM: Zone-10 N4133667 E717814
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 1.0
Location: CANAL WEST OF FRANKLIN ROAD ACROSS FROM LOBO AVE, ABOUT 0.2 MILE NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 99, MERCED.

Detailed Location: TWO COLONIES MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2010 COORDINATES PROVIDED BY GRAENING.

AGRICULTURAL CANAL; OCCASIONAL INUNDATION. ASSOCIATED WITH POLYGONUM HYDROPIPEROIDES, SORGHUM

HALEPENSE, JUNCUS BALTICUS, LYTHRUM HYSSOPIFOLIA, AVENA BARBATA, ERODIUM BOTRYS, PLANTAGO LANCEOLATA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: ABOUT 750 PLANTS OBSERVED IN EASTERN COLONY AND 96 PLANTS OBSERVED IN WESTERN COLONY IN 2010.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 13 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
Element Code: PMPOA4C010
Federal:

State:

Threatened
Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G1
S1
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: USUALLY IN THE BOTTOMS OF LARGE, OR DEEP VERNAL POOLS; ADOBE SOILS. 5-125 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 40 Map Index: 13099 EO Index: 6295 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Decreasing Record Last Updated: 2013-05-20
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24933 / -120.61933
UTM: Zone-10 N4125188 E711145
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 19.0
NORTHWEST OF JUNCTION OF RANGE ROAD AND VENTURA ROAD, 4.5 MILES NORTH OF THE MERCED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Location:

SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1982 MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTO, A 1988 MAP BY BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, AND 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

VERNAL POOLS APPARENTLY FORMED OVER LEWIS SALINE-ALKALINE SOILS. POOLS SURROUNDED BY VALLEY GRASSLAND. POOL ASSOCIATES INCLUDE AMARANTHUS ALBUS, POLYPOGON, CRYPSIS, ATRIPLEX, FRANKENIA, CRESSA, ERYNGIUM, DISTICHLIS, SIDA, NAVARRETIA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: >10,000 PLANTS IN 1982, 13,000+ IN 1986, 23,000 IN 1987, 1300 IN 1988, NONE IN 2009 & 2010, ~600 PLANTS IN 2011.

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, May 26, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 30 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 14 of 14 Information Expires 10/30/2023
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 98

6.2 Appendix B: CHRIS Search Record
Prepared by NWIC dated May 30, 2023.

Date: 5/30/2023 Records Search File #: 12555I
Project: Lower Shaffer Road Drainage
Improvement Project, 255 E. Bellevue Road
and 273 E. Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA
95301
Shin Tu, Associate Planner
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
559-449-4500 ext. 116
We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Atwater USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Merced County.

Search of our files includes review of our maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the following:

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest listing
Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD)
Survey of Surveys (1989)
Caltrans State and Local Bridges Inventory
General Land Office Plats
Other pertinent historic data available at the CCaIC for each specific county The following details the results of the records search:

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The project area is within the overall boundary of the proposed “Merced Irrigation District” (P-24-001909), listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Merced County with a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) rating of “6Y”, determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties

the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for local listing. There do not appear to be any contributing water conveyance features to the district within the project area.
• The General Land Office Survey Plat for T6S R13E shows the SW ¼ of Section 31 divided into two parcels; no other historic features are referenced. • The General Land Office Survey Plat for T7S R13E shows the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 6 as a 44.12-acre parcel; no other historic features are referenced. • The 1918 edition of the Atwater USGS quadrangle references both the E. Bellevue Road and Schaffer Road alignments.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: The Livingston Canal adjacent to the north of the project area has been formally recorded as P-24- 000552, listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Merced County with a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) rating of “6Y”, determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for local listing.

Resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Previous investigations within the project area: No direct field investigation has been reported within the project area, but there is one overview document on file that includes the project area, referenced as follows:

CCaIC Report No. ME-06858
Holman, M., and R. Hellman
2008 An Archival Study to Identify Potential Cultural Resources Located in the City of Atwater General Plan and Program EIR Project Area, Merced County, California.

Holman & Associates, San Francisco.

Recommendations/Comments:

Please be advised that a historical resource is defined as a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old. Since the project area has not been subject to previous investigations, there may be unidentified features involved in your project that are 45 years or older and considered as historical resources requiring further study and evaluation by a qualified professional of the appropriate discipline.

If the current project does not include ground disturbance, further study for archaeological resources is not recommended at this time. If ground disturbance is considered a part of the current project, we recommend further review for the possibility of identifying prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources.

If the proposed project contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years in age or older) it is recommended that the resource/s be assessed by a professional familiar with architecture and history of the county. Review of the available historic building/structure data has included only those sources listed above and should not be considered comprehensive.

If at any time you might require the services of a qualified professional the Statewide Referral List for Historical Resources Consultants is posted for your use on the internet at http://chrisinfo.org
If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.

If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires you to protect the discovery and notify the county coroner, who will determine if the find is Native American. If the remains are recognized as Native American, the coroner shall then notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 authorizes the NAHC to appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

We thank you for contacting this office regarding historical resource preservation. Please let us know when we can be of further service. Thank you for sending the signed Access Agreement Short Form.

Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($150.00), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services

CITY OF ATWATER – Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project | 99

6.3 Appendix C: NAHC SLF Results Letter
Prepared by NAHC dated June 26, 2023.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

June 26, 2023
Shin Tu
Precision Civil Engineering
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project, Merced County Dear Mr. Tu:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
[VAVANT]

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[VAVANT]

COMMISSIONER
[VACANT]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

RESOLUTION NO. 3434-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENT NO. 7 AMENDING THE 2023-24

FISCAL YEAR BUDGET REGARDING THE

LOWER SHAFFER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3397-23 adopting the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Budget on June 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, in order to operate effectively, it is necessary to amend the said budget; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby approve Budget Amendment No. 7 to the 2023-24 Fiscal Year Budget as follows:

SECTION 1: Increasing budget in Capital Improvement Project for the Lower Shaffer Drainage Project for FY 2023-2024
Increase Budget
(Expense)
6010-1080-W009 Lower Shaffer
Drainage Project
$400,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution appends to the original budget document that is available in the Finance Department and the City Clerk’s office.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted the 9th day of October 2023.

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER

Resolution No. 3434-23 Page 2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:

KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 1 of 16

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ATWATER AND GHD, INC (PROFESSIONAL)
THIS AGREEMENT for professional services is made by and between the City of Atwater, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and GHD, Inc (GHD), (“Professional”) as of October 9, 2023 (the “Effective Date”). City and Professional shall be referred to herein separately as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.

Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Professional shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and the Exhibit A, this Agreement shall prevail.

1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall end on October 8, 2024, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A.

Professional shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8.

The time provided to Professional to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.

1.2 Standard of Performance. Professional shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Professional is engaged in the geographical area in which Professional practices its profession. Professional shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Professional's profession.

1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Professional shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Professional shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. All personnel, including those reassigned at City’s request, shall be supervised by Professional. Professional is prohibited from subcontracting this Agreement, or any part of it, unless such subcontracting is expressly approved by City in writing.

1.4 Time. Professional shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.2 above and to satisfy Professional’s obligations hereunder.

Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed $649,989, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Professional’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 2 of 16
Agreement and Professional’s fee schedule regarding the amount of compensation, attached as Exhibit B, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Professional for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Professional for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Professional shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, Professional shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.

Professional and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Professional under this Agreement is based upon Professional’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Professional. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Professional and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.

2.1 Invoices. Professional shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs, if any, incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
▪ Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; ▪ The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; ▪ A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
▪ At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;
▪ The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Professional and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Professional performing services hereunder;
▪ The Professional’s signature; and
▪ Professional shall give separate notice to the City when the total number of hours worked by Professional and any one individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Professional reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete work described in Exhibit A, if applicable.

2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Professional.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 3 of 16

2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last ten percent (10%) of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.

2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Professional pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Professional in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.

In no event shall Professional submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.

2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Professional on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B.

2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses, if any, are set forth in Exhibit B.

Expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.

2.7 Payment of Taxes. Professional is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Professional terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Professional for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Professional shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date.

2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Professional is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator, as defined in Section 11.9.

Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Professional shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Professional only the facilities and equipment listed in this Section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.

City may furnish, at its sole discretion, physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Professional’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 4 of 16
may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.

Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Professional, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Professional and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Professional shall provide proof satisfactory to the City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this Section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to the City. Professional shall maintain the insurance policies required by this Section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Professional’s bid. Professional shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Professional has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence that such insurance is in effect to the City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Professional shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement.

4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Professional shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Professional. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident. In the alternative, Professional may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code.

Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Professional, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement.

An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Professional shall notify City within fourteen (14) days of notification from Professional’s insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or in limits.

The requirement to maintain Statutory Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance may be waived by the City upon written verification that Professional does not have any employees.

4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.

4.2.1 General requirements. Professional, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) and automobile liability

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 5 of 16
insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00). The commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance shall be per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a commercial general liability insurance or an automobile liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.

4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (most recent edition) covering comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition), Code 1 (any auto). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Professional, including the insured’s general supervision of Professional; products and completed operations of Professional; premises owned, occupied, or used by Professional; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Professional. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.
c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. d. Any failure of Professional to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 6 of 16
e. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Professional shall notify City within fourteen (14) days of notification from Professional’s insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or in limits.

4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.

4.3.1 General requirements. Professional, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

4.3.2 Claims-made form. The following provisions shall also apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Professional must purchase an extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work under this Agreement, whichever is later.
d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.

4.4 All Policies Requirements.

4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this Section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.

4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Professional shall furnish City with certificates of insurance evidencing required policies delivered to Professional by the insurer, including complete copies of all endorsements attached to those certificates. All copies of policies and endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 7 of 16
bind coverage on its behalf. If the City does not receive the required insurance documents prior to the Professional beginning work, it shall not waive the Professional’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies at any time.

4.4.3 Subcontractors. Professional shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

4.4.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Professional shall disclose to and obtain the written approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement.

During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Professional may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Professional procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them.

4.4.5 Wasting Policies. Except for Professional Liability insurance policy, no policy required by this Section 4 shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e. limit that is eroded by the cost of defense).

4.4.6 Waiver of Subrogation. Professional hereby agrees to waive subrogration which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Professional agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the entity for all work performed by the Professional, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Professional fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies, or policy endorsements, to the extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option, exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Professional’s breach:
▪ Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 8 of 16
▪ Order Professional to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Professional hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment until Professional demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or ▪ Terminate this Agreement.

Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND PROFESSIONAL’S RESPONSIBILITIES.

5.1 General Requirement. Professional shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Professional or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Professional shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Professional or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Professional to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Professional from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Professional acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration.

5.2 PERS Indemnification. In the event that Professional or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Professional providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Professional shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Professional or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

5.3 Design Professionals. To the extent that the services under this Agreement include design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time, Professional’s duty to indemnify under Sections 5.1 and 5.2 shall only be to the maximum extent permitted by California Civil Code Section 2782.8.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 9 of 16
Section 6. STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL.

6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Professional shall be an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, and shall not be an employee of City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to be inconsistent with the foregoing relationship or status. City shall have the right to control Professional only insofar as the results of Professional's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Section 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Professional accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Professional shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind the City in any respect. All employees and agents hired or retained by Professional are employees and agents of Professional and not of the City. The City shall not be obligated in any way to pay any wage claims or other claims made against Professional by any such employees or agents, or any other person resulting from performance of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Professional and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

Professional shall not allow any employee to become eligible for a claim for PERS benefits.

6.2 Professional Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Professional shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Professional shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Professional and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work hereunder, including but not limited to, the California Building Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and any copyright, patent or trademark law. Professional’s failure to comply with any law(s) or regulation(s) applicable to the performance of the work hereunder shall constitute a breach of contract.

7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Professional, and any subcontractors, shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 10 of 16

7.4 Licenses and Permits. Professional represents and warrants to City that Professional and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Professional represents and warrants to City that Professional and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Professional and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain valid Business Licenses from City during the term of this Agreement.

7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Professional shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Professional under this Agreement. Professional shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Professional thereby.

Professional shall include the provisions of this Section in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.

Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.

8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Professional.

Professional may cancel this Agreement upon 90 days’ prior written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.

In the event of termination, Professional shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the satisfaction of the City to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Professional delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Professional or prepared by or for Professional or the City in connection with this Agreement.

8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Section 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Professional understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Professional with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 11 of 16
Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Professional for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.

8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.

8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Professional recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Professional and is based upon a determination of Professional’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Professional.

Professional may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Professional shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.

8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Professional shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

8.6 Options upon Breach by Professional. If Professional materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement. City shall not in any manner be liable for Professional’s actual or projected lost profits had Professional completed the services required by this Agreement;

8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Professional pursuant to this Agreement;

8.6.3 Retain a different professional to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Professional; or

8.6.4 Charge Professional the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Professional pursuant to Section 2 if Professional had completed the work.

Section 9. Confidentiality. Professional understands and agrees that, in the performance of services under this Agreement or in the contemplation thereof, Professional may have access to confidential information or other materials exempt from public disclosure, and that such information may contain sensitive or confidential data, the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City (“Confidential Information”) or any third party. Professional shall not, either during or after the Term, disclose to any third party any Confidential Information without the prior written consent of City. If City gives Professional written

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 12 of 16
authorization to make any such disclosure, Professional shall do so only within the limits and to the extent of that authorization.

Section 10. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

10.1 Records Created as Part of Professional’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Professional prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Professional hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Professional agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties.

10.2 Professional’s Books and Records. Professional shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Professional to this Agreement.

10.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 10.2 of this Agreement requires Professional to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement.

Section 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

11.1 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

11.2 Venue. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Merced or in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 13 of 16

11.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

11.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.

11.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.

11.6 Use of Recycled Products. Professional shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.

11.7 Conflict of Interest. Professional may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Professional in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code section 81000 et seq.

Professional shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code sections 1090 et seq.

Professional hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous 12 months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Professional was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Professional warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Professional understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code section 1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Professional will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Professional will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Professional. Professional understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code section 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.

11.8 Solicitation. Professional agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.

11.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Lori Waterman ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 14 of 16

11.10 Notices. Any written notice to Professional shall be sent to:

Michael Beerends, Project Director
30 River Park Place West
Suite 220
Fresno, CA 93720
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:

Lori Waterman, City Manager
1160 Fifth Street
Atwater, CA 95301

11.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator or when required by law, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example.
_________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.

11.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Professional and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.

11.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

11.14 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement for each covenant and term of a condition herein.

11.15 Authority. All Parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, or firms represented or purported to be represented by such entities, persons, states or firms and that all former requirements necessary or required by the state or federal law in order to enter into the Agreement have been fully complied with.

11.16 Drafting and Ambiguities. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement with its own legal counsel, and based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 15 of 16
this Agreement. Each Party has participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party does not apply in interpreting this Agreement.

11.17 Headings. Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement.

11.18 IRS Form W-9. Professional shall complete and submit Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 to the City before execution of this Agreement. The City’s Finance Director shall have authority to waive this requirement.
[signatures on the following page]

Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 16 of 16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY PROFESSIONAL
____________________________ ______________________________ Lori Waterman, City Manager Michael Beerends, Project Director Attest:
____________________________
Kory Billings, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_________________________________
Frank Splendorio, City Attorney

Exhibit A to Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

Exhibit B to Professional Services Agreement between October 9, 2023 City of Atwater and GHD, Inc Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B

FEE SCHEDULE

Lower Shaffer Road Drainage Improvement Project
12612195
Description Ann Bechtel Bill Delnicki
Timothy
Joyce Jane Rozga
Rick
Guggiana Erin Gibbs
Erik
Fanselau
Francisco
Andrade
Micheal
Beerends
Seth
Stevens
Nathan
Towlerton
Greg
Garrison Julia Clark
Jenni
Richards Chris Doud
Luke
Halonen James Pan Frank Kling Phillip Liu
Jeremy
Paulter Virgilio Duno
Michael
Pitcock Gary Park Dan Song
Steven
Pearl Tom Hessel
Tyler
Burkhart Total Hours Labor Total Blackburn Northstar Badger Subs Markup Total Subs Disb. Fee Total Disb.

Estimated
Project Total
GIS
Civil
Engineer
Staff Civil
Engineer LA LA
$263.0 $263.0 $263.0 $245.0 $221.0 $154.0 $203.0 $203.0 $203 $203 $186 $168 $154 $119 $147 $186 $203 $217 $217 $151 $144 $168 $126 $151 $186 $168 $147 Task1 4 8 2 4 4 0 78 0 43.5 4 0 0 0 16 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179.5 $36,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,173 $2,173 $38,392 Subtask 1.1 Project Initiation 0 00000404000000000000000000 8 $1,624 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $97 $97 $1,721 Subtask 1.2 Project Coordination 0 0 0 0 0 050 024000000004400000000 82 $16,758 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,005 $1,005 $17,763 Subtask 1.3 Kick-Off Meeting 0 00000808000000000000000000 16 $3,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $195 $195 $3,443 Subtask 1.4 Value Engineering 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 07.5000000440000000000 23.5 $5,183 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $311 $311 $5,493 Subtask 1.5 QA/QC 2 02440000400000000000000000 16 $3,728 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $224 $3,952 Subtask 1.6 Project Controls 2 0 0 0 0 016 0 0 0 0 0 0160000000000000 34 $5,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $341 $341 $6,019 Task2 0 00000200000000000000000000 2 $406 $0 $51,255 $0 $5,126 $56,381 $24 $24 $56,811 Subtask 2.1 Survey 0 00000200000000000000000000 2 $406 $0 $51,255 $0 $5,126 $56,381 $24 $24 $56,811 Task3 0 00000300000000400000000000 7 $1,353 $47,099 $0 $0 $4,710 $51,809 $81 $81 $53,243 Subtask 3.1 Geotech Analysis and Report 0 00000300000000400000000000 7 $1,353 $47,099 $0 $0 $4,710 $51,809 $81 $81 $53,243 Task4 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 $6,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $378 $378 $6,678 Subtask 4.1 Data Collection 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 $6,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $378 $378 $6,678 Task5 0 0 0 0 0 24 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 $23,804 $0 $0 $51,698 $5,170 $56,868 $1,428 $1,428 $82,100 Subtask 5.1 Utility Letters 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 $8,022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $481 $481 $8,503 Subtask 5.2 Utility Coordination 0 0 0 0 0 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 040800000000000 68 $11,232 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $674 $674 $11,906 Subtask 5.3 Potholing 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 024000000000000 30 $4,550 $0 $0 $51,698 $5,170 $56,868 $273 $273 $61,691 Task6 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 39.5 4 76 34 00000000000000 180.5 $32,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,935 $1,935 $34,182 Subtask 6.1 Software Selection 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 $508 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30 $30 $538 Subtask 6.2 Existing Condition Model Development 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 4 012 1200000000000000 38 $6,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $402 $402 $7,108 Subtask 6.3 System Capacity Analysis 0 00000000808600000000000000 22 $3,892 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $234 $234 $4,126 Subtask 6.4 System Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 016000000000000000 22 $3,906 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $234 $234 $4,140 Subtask 6.5 Alternatives Analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 416800000000000000 38 $6,694 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $402 $402 $7,096 Subtask 6.6 Drainage Report 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 016 024800000000000000 54 $9,730 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $584 $584 $10,314 Subtask 6.7 Water Quality 0 00000400000000000000000000 4 $812 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49 $49 $861 Task7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2 4 20 10 0 0 30 44 40 0 0 176 $29,926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,796 $1,796 $31,722 Subtask 7.1 Civil Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 36 $6,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $402 $402 $7,098 Subtask 7.2 Structural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 030 44000 82 $12,048 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $723 $723 $12,771 Subtask 7.4 Mechanical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01600 24 $4,464 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $268 $268 $4,732 Subtask 7.5 SCADA/Automation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 100000000 34 $6,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $403 $403 $7,121 Task8 0 0 0 0 48 128 36 0 4 2 4 16 24 0 184 28 0 2 36 15 44 4 0 0 40 8 42 665 $110,707 0 0 0 0 0 $6,642 $6,642 $117,349 Subtask 8.1 30% Alternative Analysis 0 0 0 0 8 40 0 0 4 2 4 16 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 $16,274 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $976 $976 $17,250 Subtask 8.2 65% Plans 0 0 0 0 24 40 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0160 16 0 020 15 40 4 0 040 432 411 $67,061 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,024 $4,024 $71,085 Subtask 8.3 65% Specs 0 0 0 0 10 40 16 00000000802000000024 82 $14,464 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $868 $868 $15,332 Subtask 8.4 65% Estimate 0 0 0 0 6 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 4 0 01604000026 74 $12,908 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $774 $774 $13,682 Task9 0 0 0 0 48 188 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 38 0 31 78 26 52 8 0 0 56 21 117 935 $157,302 0 0 0 0 0 9438.12 9438.12 $166,740 Subtask 9.1 95% Plans 0 0 0 0 24 40 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 12 0 4 20 0 40 4 0 0 32 8 52 380 $62,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,767 $3,767 $66,555 Subtask 9.2 95% Specs 0 0 0 0 832 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 013 2000000046 95 $17,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,063 $1,063 $18,774 Subtask 9.3 95% Estimate 0 0 0 0 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 016400002000015 44 $7,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $433 $433 $7,648 Subtask 9.4 100% Plans 0 0 0 0 860 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 8 0 424 26 8 4 0 024 448 314 $51,522 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,091 $3,091 $54,613 Subtask 9.5 100% Specs 0 0 0 0 224 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 010 1400000024 64 $11,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $710 $710 $12,536 Subtask 9.6 100% Estimate 0 0 0 0 224400000000200002000022 38 $6,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $374 $374 $6,614 Task10 0 8 0 6 12 8 56 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 84 12 0 0 36 0 0 0 6 0 36 14 24 325 $59,219 0 0 0 0 0 3553.14 3553.14 $62,772 Subtask 10.1 Bidding and Award Support 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 $6,078 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $365 $365 $6,443 Subtask 10.2 RFI and Submittal Reviews 0 8 0 2 12 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 0 016 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 01260 99 $19,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,149 $1,149 $20,298 Subtask 10.3 Construction Observation 0 0 0 0 0 016 0 0 0 0 0 0 024000800000080 56 $9,856 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591 $591 $10,447 Subtask 10.4 Change Order Support 0 00000800000000000400000000 12 $2,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 $150 $2,642 Subtask 10.5 Progress Payment Support 0 0 0 0 0 01600000000000000000000 16 $3,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $195 $195 $3,443 Subtask 10.6 As-built Drawings 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 024 024 112 $18,396 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,104 $1,104 $19,500 Total Labor Hours 4 16 2 10 112 356 290 27 49.5 45.5 8 100 58 16 580 114 6 45 178 51 96 12 36 44 172 43 183 2654 $457,483 $47,099 $51,255 $51,698 $15,005 $165,057 $27,449 $27,449 $649,989 x Estimated Project Total $1,052 $4,208 $526 $2,450 $24,752 $54,824 $58,870 $5,481 $10,049 $9,237 $1,488 $16,800 $8,932 $1,904 $85,260 $21,204 $1,218 $9,765 $38,626 $7,701 $13,824 $2,016 $4,536 $6,644 $31,992 $7,224 $26,901 2654 $457,483 $47,099 $51,255 $51,698 $15,005 $165,057 $27,449 $27,449 $649,989

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

October 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Ana Jaramillo, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: Awarding a General Construction Contract for the First Street Overlay Project (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to award a General Construction Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to United Pavement Maintenance, Inc. of Hughson, California, for the First Street Overlay Project, City Project 23-06, in an amount not to exceed $564,267.00 and authorize construction contract change orders up to an aggregate amount of $56,426.70 (10%); and authorizes and directs the City Manager or her designee to execute all contract documents on behalf of the City; or

Motion to approve staff recommendations as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

All pavements deteriorate with the passage of time and application of traffic loads. The rate of deterioration is based on a complex interaction of many factors including, amount of traffic, pavement structure, materials used in construction, subgrade conditions and localized factors. Over the years, the deterioration of the roadway on First St has been caused by a combination of climate and load-related distress. Climaterelated distress in particular is due to weathering of asphalt concrete pavement and load related distress such as rutting and alligator cracking.

In 2018, Dynatest performed a network-level condition survey of the City's pavements and used the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method in assessing the condition of the City's pavements. The PCI method is a more objective and repeatable method for assessing pavement conditions and is widely used in the industry. The condition assessment of First St, between Bellevue Rd and Juniper Ave, resulted in a poor and very poor condition. If funding wasn't an issue, staff would recommend a full reconstruction of this section of First St due to the poor condition of the roadway, but since the city is limited in funds, especially in its Gas Tax Fund, staff is recommending an overlay on First St.

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

Agenda Report - Page 2

The specifications and scope of work included in the overlay of First St, in between Bellevue Rd and Juniper Ave, will consist of grinding the existing asphalt concrete, installation of an asphalt paving mat, an overlay of 1 1/2" of asphalt concrete over the mat, and upgrading all concrete curb returns to ADA complaint curb returns. This is approximately 200,000 square feet of pavement overlay. This will also include approximately 50 feet of overlay on intersecting streets that do not have a gutter. See Exhibit-A for a map of the estimated areas included in the Project). The estimated cost of construction is $500,000.

Bid proposals for this project were opened on Thursday, September 28, 2023, at 2:00 P.M. and were totaled and reviewed for responsiveness. Eight (8) bid proposals were received. The Bid Summary (Exhibit “A”) shows the bid amounts ranging from $564,270.00 to $867,125.00.

Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that the bid submitted by United Pavement Maintenance Inc. of Hughson, California in the amount of $564,270.00 is a responsive and acceptable bid.

The recommended contract administration practice is to include 10% of the bid amount as contingency funds for unforeseen and necessary changes to the contract. Staff is recommending a total construction budget of $620,693.70. This total budget includes the construction contract amount of $564,267.00 for bid items and $56,426.70 contingency with contractor .

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding for this project is available in the ARPA Fund, First St Overlay FY 2023-24; Account No. 1010.1080.X007.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

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

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item consists of goals number one (1) and two (2) of the City's Strategic Plan; to ensure the City's continued financial stability and to improve public safety, respectively V. ALTERNATIVES:

Not required for all staff reports but should be included in most reports where the Council should be considering options, or discussion of options already investigated.

If there are Policy options for consideration, the discussion should be specific and detailed.

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Agenda Report - Page 3

This item has been reviewed by all departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is Categorically Exempt (CE) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA) guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1(c): Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Following City Council’s approval for the award of contract, staff will issue a notice of award to the contractor, hold a pre-construction meeting, and issue a notice to proceed, with construction to follow.

Submitted by:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Approved by:

Lori Waterman, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A-Bid Summary Bid Call

2. Construction Services Agreement

CITY OF ATWATER

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

BID SUMMARY

FIRST STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
Project No. 23-06; Bid Call No. 722-23
Bid Opening: September 28,2023; Engineer’s Estimate: $750,000 No. Contractor Bid Total
1 United Pavement Maintenance, Inc.
70117 Hughson Ave.

Hughson, CA 95326 $564,267
2 George Reed, Inc.
140 Empire Ave.

Modesto, CA 95354 $639,140
3 A&A Paving Company, Inc.
220 Solano Ave.

Bay Point, CA $666,156
4 Agee Construction Co.

PO Box 629
Clovis, CA 93613 $676,777
5 Rolfe Construction
3573 Southern Pacific Ave.

Atwater CA, 95301 $696,961
6 Hensley’s Paving & General
Engineering Inc.

P.O Box 449
Hickman CA, 95323
$732,473
7 Cal Valley Construction, Inc.
5125 N. Gates Ave., Suite 102
Fresno CA, 93722
$754,903
8 B&M Builders, Inc.
11330 Sunrise Park Dr., Suite C
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
$867,125

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 1 of 12

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
This GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made by and between the CITY OF ATWATER, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc (“Contractor”) as of October 9, 2023, City and Contractor shall be referred to herein separately as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.

1. The Contract. It is mutually agreed and understood that the complete Contract shall consist of the following component documents, all of which are fully a part hereof as if herein set out in full, or if not attached, as if hereto attached:

A. This Contract;
B. Plans and Specifications for PROJECT NO. 23-06;
C. Special Provisions for PROJECT NO. 23-06;
D. Notice to Contractors;
E. Proposal to the City of Atwater;
F. Performance Bond;
G. Labor and Material Bond;
H. Current edition of the Caltrans Standard Specifications; I. Current edition of the Caltrans Standard Plans;
J. The latest revisions to the General Prevailing Wage Rates; and K. Any Published Addenda.

Any and all obligations of the City and the Contractor are fully set forth and described therein.

All of the above component documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. The component documents comprising the complete Contract are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Contract Documents”. To the extent any of the Contract Documents are in conflict with each other, the component documents shall have priority based upon their hierarchical order set forth above.

2. Effective Date. This Contract shall only become effective once all of the Parties have executed the Contract (the “Effective Date”). Contractor, however, shall not commence the performance of the work until it has been given notice by City (“Notice to Proceed”).

3. Term. This Contract shall commence on the Effective Date and naturally terminate after Final Payment of Contractor by City as defined by Section 5-1.08 of the Special Provisions. Section 8-1.14 of the 2010 Caltrans Standard Specifications provides for Terminations. Section 2-1.12A of the 2010 Caltrans Standard Specifications allows for termination in accordance with 49 CFR

26.13(b) for failure by the contractor to carry out the requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration of this contract.

4. The Work. Contractor agrees to furnish all tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, transportation, and material necessary to perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner all work of improvement in accordance with the Contract Documents, and in the manner designated in, and in strict conformity with, the Project Plans and Specifications for PROJECT NO. 23-06, entitled, “FIRST STREET OVERLAY PROJECT” for construction in Atwater, Merced County,

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 2 of 12 California. It is understood and agreed that said tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, transportation, and material shall be furnished and said work performed and completed as required in said Project Plans and Specifications under the sole direction and control of the Contractor, and subject to inspection and approval of the City or its representative. The City hereby designates the City Engineer as its representative for the purpose of this Contract.

City, without invalidating this Contract, may order changes to the work, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. All such changes to the work, including in the Contract Price and Contract time for performance, shall be authorized by Change Order or Work Change Directive, signed by the City Manager. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract time for performance if it fails to secure such written authorization for such work, except in the case of an emergency as provided in the 2010 Caltrans Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions.

5. Contract Price. The City agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to receive and accept, the following Contract prices as full compensation for furnishing all materials and performing all work in accordance with this Contract as follows:

BASE BID
ITEM
NO. ITEM UNIT OF MEASURE

ESTIMATED

QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
PRICE
1 Mobilization LS 1 $43,000 $43,000
2 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $30,000 $30,000
3 Erosion, Sedimentation, and
Pollution Control LS 1 $4,922 $4,922
4 Remove existing traffic striping and
pavement markings LS 1 $13,650 $13,650
5 Remove existing pavement AC
pavement (wedge grind) LS 7,875 $4.40 $34,650
6 Upgrade existing curb ramps LS 1 $11,650 $11,650
7 Repair existing AC pavement LS 205,100 $0.17 $34,867
8 Raise existing utilities covers to
finish grade LS 1 $23,125 $23,125
9 1.5” Type a HMA overlay with
pavement fabric SF 205,100 $1.53 $313,803
10 Replace traffic stripping and
pavement markings LS 1 $54,600 $54,600
TOTAL BASE BID: $564,267

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 3 of 12 Additional services may be authorized by the City Manager in an amount up to, but not to exceed 10% of the Total Contract Amount stated above as $56,426.70. In the event that additional services are deemed necessary, the Contractor shall provide a written request to the City Manager indicating the reason for the additional work, scope and cost of such work. The City Manager shall provide a written response to the request, either approving or denying the additional expenditure, in whole or in part, based upon a recommendation by the Public Works Director, or his designee. If additional services are requested and approved, they shall not exceed the amount approved in writing by the City Manager. In that event, the new total compensation shall not exceed the Total Contract Amount as stated herein, plus 10% of that price, or $56,426.70. If additional services in excess of this amount (total contract price plus 10%) are deemed necessary by City staff, an amendment to this Agreement will be required and must be approved by City Council prior to commencing the work.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 4 of 12

6. Termination. If the Contractor should become insolvent or if Contractor should make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed on account of its insolvency, or if it or any of its subcontractors should violate any of the provisions of the Contract Documents, the City may serve written notice upon Contractor and its surety of its intention to terminate the Contract. The notice shall contain the reasons for the City’s intent to terminate the Contract and unless the violation ceases and/or is corrected within ten (10) days of service of the notice, the Contract shall cease and terminate. In the event of any such termination, the City shall immediately serve a written notice of termination on the surety and the Contractor, and the surety shall have the right to take over and perform the Contract. The surety shall serve a written notice of intent to take over and perform the Contract on the City within fifteen (15) days of service of the notice to terminate and shall commence performance of the Contract within thirty (30) days from service of the notice to terminate. In the event the surety fails to serve the notice of intent to take over and perform or fails to commence performance as required in this Section, the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or by any other method it may deem advisable, for the account and at the expense of the Contractor, and the Contractor and its surety shall be liable to the City for any excess cost incurred by the City, and in such event the City may, without liability for so doing, take possession of and utilize in completing the work such materials, appliances, plant, and other property belonging to the Contractor as may be on the site of the work and necessary to complete the work. The City may also terminate the Contractor's performance under the Agreement, either in whole or in part, at its own discretion, with or without cause, or for convenience or when conditions encountered during the work make it impossible or impracticable to proceed, or when the City is prevented from proceeding with the Agreement by act of God, by law, or by official action of a public authority, or upon a determination by the City that such termination is in the best interest and convenience of the City, or whenever the City is prohibited from completing the work for any reason. The City shall provide no less than fifteen (15) calendar days written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement for convenience and shall endeavor to provide the Contractor with consultation with the City prior to termination.

7. Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing and shall be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, with return receipt requested. Such notice shall be deemed served or given three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Postal Service. The address of each Party to this Contract for purposes of notice shall be as indicated below. Each Party may change its address for notice by giving notice of such change to the other Party in the manner set forth above.

If to City: Lori Waterman, City Manager
City of Atwater
1160 Fifth Street
Atwater, California 95301
If to Contractor: United Pavement Maintenance, Inc
PO Box 1017
Hughson, CA 95326
If to Surety: ___________________

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 5 of 12

8. Assignment of Contract. The Contractor shall not assign the Contract, moneys due under the Contract, or monies to become due under the Contract, without first obtaining the prior written consent of the City.

9. Contract Security. The Contractor shall furnish a surety bond in an amount at least equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price as security for the faithful performance of this Contract (“Performance Bond”). The Contractor shall also furnish a separate surety bond in an amount at least equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price as security for the payment of all persons for furnishing materials, provisions, provender, or other supplies used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for performing any work or labor thereon of any kind, and for the payment of amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor in connection with this Contract, and for the payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court in case suit is brought upon the bond (“Labor and Material Bond”).

10. Insurance. Contractor shall maintain in full force and effect policies of insurance set forth herein, which shall be placed with insurers with a current A M Best’s rating of no less than A VII and will provide City with written proof of said insurance. Contractor shall maintain coverage as follows and will provide City with written proof of said insurance. Such insurance shall remain in effect at least until final payment and at all times thereafter when Contractor may be correcting, removing, or replacing defective work. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the contractor’s bid. Contractor shall maintain coverage as follows:

A. Minimum Scope of Insurance.

1. Commercial General Liability coverage at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO Form CG 00 01) with limits of liability of at least $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance forms or other forms with a general aggregate limit are used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be $4,000,000.

2. An Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commercial General Liability coverage form naming the City as an insured at least as broad as ISO form CG 20 37 10 01 entitled

ADDITIONAL INSURED-OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS COMPLETED OPERATIONS.

3. Business Auto Liability coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with limits of liability of at least $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage, covering any automobile owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees, or for which the Contractor is responsible.

4. An Automobile Liability Special Endorsement to the Business Auto Liability form naming the City as an insured with regard to damages and the defense of claims arising out of use of any automobile for which the Contractor is responsible. (In the alternative,

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 6 of 12 the Contractor may provide a Designated Insured Endorsement form at least as broad as ISO Form CA 00 01).

5. Workers’ Compensation coverage for the Contractor’s employees with limits as required by California law, and Employers Liability coverage with limits of liability of at least $1,000,000 per accident or occurrence.

6. A Certificate of Liability Insurance showing evidence of the above liability coverages prior to the commencement of work.

B. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions.

Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City.

At the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or selfinsured retentions as respects to the City, its officers, public officials, employees and volunteers, or (2) the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.

C. Other Insurance Provisions.

The Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

1. The City, its officers, public officials, agents, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured’s with respect to liability and defense arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the contractor; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (CG 20 10), or as a separate owner’s policy.

2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s liability insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, public officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance of self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

4. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.

5. The Contractor agrees that any and all liability insurance coverages available to it as a named insured will be applicable to the City as an Additional Insured.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 7 of 12

6. If other than ISO forms are used by the insurer(s) for the Contractor, each form used will require individual review and approval by the City of Atwater.

D. Acceptability of Commercial Insurers.

Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A:

VII.”
E. Verification of Coverage.

Contractor shall furnish the City with Certificates of Liability Insurance and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the Entity’s forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the requirements of the Contract. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

F. Subcontractors.

Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the insurance requirements stated herein.

G. For Construction Risks.

If this is a Proposal and Contract that involves a construction risk, in addition to the Insurance Requirement specified above, the Contractor shall procure and maintain Course of Construction (Builder’s Risk) insurance covering all risks of loss with limits of liability of not less than the completed value of the project with no coinsurance penalty provisions.

The Course of Construction insurance policies shall contain the following provisions:

1. The City shall be named as loss payee; and

2. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City.

11. Indemnification. The Contractor will indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, save, keep, and hold harmless, the City and all officers, public officials, employees, and agents thereof from and against any and all actions, claims, loss, cost, damage, injury (including, without limitation, disability, injury or death of an employee of Contractor or its subcontractors), expense and liability of every kind, nature and description that arise out of, pertain to or relate to performance of the work, provided that any such action, claim, loss, cost, damage, injury, expense or liability is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the work itself), including the loss of use resulting there from but only to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission of Contractor, subcontractor, any supplier, or any individual or entity directly or indirectly employed by any of them to perform any of the work or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. It is understood that the duty of

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 8 of 12 Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall, wherever it is necessary, keep and maintain at his sole cost and expense during the course of his operations under this Contract such warnings, signs, and barriers as may be required to protect the public. The provisions of the preceding sentence shall not impose any liability upon the City and are for the express benefit of the general public.

Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Contract does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause.

This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Contract, Contractor acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration.

It is expressly understood that Contractor is an independent contractor and that its employees shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the City. Contractor shall be responsible for the payment of all taxes, workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Should contractor desire any insurance protection, the Contractor is to acquire such protection at its expense.

In the event that Contractor or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Contractor providing services under this Contract is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Contractor or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

12. Accident Prevention. Precaution shall be exercised at all times for protection of persons (including employees) and property. The safety provisions of applicable laws, building and construction codes shall be observed. Machinery, equipment, and other hazards shall be guarded or eliminated in accordance with the safety provisions of the Construction Safety Orders issued by the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California.

13. Payment. The City will make partial and final payment to the Contractor except that the City will retain five percent (5%) of the final payment amount until the expiration of thirty-five (35) days from the date of recording by City of the notice of acceptance of completion of all work covered by this Contract, at which time and not before, City shall pay to Contractor the remaining five percent (5%), less any previous payments and deductions provided for herein.

The closure date for the purpose of making monthly progress payment will be the last calendar day of that month. The Contractor may request in writing that such monthly closure date be changed. The Engineer may approve such request when it is compatible with the City’s payment procedure.

Each month, the Contractor will submit its own invoice for work performed through the closure date and the Engineer will make an approximate measurement of the work performed through the closure date and as a basis for making monthly payments, estimate its value based on the Contract

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 9 of 12 unit prices or as the Engineer deems appropriate. The City will endeavor to, not later than twenty (20) working days after receipt of the Contractor’s invoice, make partial payment to the Contractor, based on work performed and material incorporated in the project as of the closure date of the particular calendar month, providing that the Contractor’s invoice for the work performed agrees with the Engineer’s determination. If the Engineer’s determination differs from the Contractor’s invoice, the City will make payment to the Contractor for those items or portions of items not in dispute not later than payment would have been made had no dispute occurred. Within ten (10) calendar days after agreement on disputed work is achieved between the City and the Contractor, the City shall pay the Contractor for any additional monies due as a result of settling any dispute.

When the work has been satisfactorily completed, the Engineer will determine the quantity of work performed and prepare the final estimate.

The payment of progress payments by the City shall not be construed as an absolute acceptance of the work done up to the time of such payments, but the entire work is to be subjected to the inspection and approval of the City and subject to whatever inspection and approval may be required by law.

It is further agreed by the Parties that before each payment is made as provided above, receipts and releases of liens of all kinds for all labor and materials and all other indebtedness connected with the work shall be presented to the City by the Contractor upon the request of the City.

14. Prevailing Wage. The statement of prevailing wages appearing in the General Prevailing Wage Rates is hereby specifically referred to and by this reference is made a part of this Contract.

It is further expressly agreed by and between the Parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.

15. Article VI. The improvements contemplated in the performance of this Contract is a Federal-Aid improvement over which the State of California shall exercise general supervision.

The State of California therefore shall have the right to assume full and direct control over this Contract whenever the State of California, at its sole discretion, shall determine that its responsibility to the United States so requires. In such cases, the State Contract Act will govern.

16. General Provisions.
(a) Modification. No alteration, amendment, modification, or termination of this Contract shall be valid unless made in writing and in accordance with the Contract Documents. (b) Waiver. No covenant, term, or condition or the breach thereof shall be deemed waived, except by written consent of the Party against whom the waiver is claimed, and any waiver of the breach of any covenant, term, or condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, term, or condition. (c) Authority. All Parties to this Contract warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Contract and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, or firms represented or purported to be represented

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 10 of 12 by such entities, persons, states or firms and that all former requirements necessary or required by the state or federal law in order to enter into the Contract have been fully complied with.
(d) Drafting and Ambiguities. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Contract with its own legal counsel, and based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into this Contract. Each Party has participated fully in the review and revision of this Contract.

Any rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party does not apply in interpreting this Contract.
(e) Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California.
(f) Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court of California for the County of Merced.
(g) Severability. If this Contract in its entirety is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, this Contract shall automatically terminate as of the date of final entry of judgment. If any provision of this Contract shall be determined by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, or if any provision of this Contract is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any federal or state statute, which becomes effective after the Effective Date of this Contract, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect and shall be construed to give effect to the intent of this Contract. (h) Counterparts. This Contract may be executed simultaneously and in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
(i) Audit. City shall have access at all reasonable times to all reports, contract records, contract documents, contract files, and personnel necessary to audit and verify Contractor’s charges to City under this Contract.
(j) Entire Contract. This Contract, together with its specific references, attachments and exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matters hereof, and supersedes any and all prior negotiations, understanding and agreements with respect hereto, whether oral or written.
(k) Supersedes Prior Agreement. It is the intention of the Parties hereto that this Contract shall supersede any prior agreements, discussions, commitments, or representations whether, written, electronic or oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Contract.
(l) Mandatory and Permissive. “Shall” and “will” and “agrees” are mandatory. “May” and “can” are permissive.
(m) Headings. Headings used in this Contract are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Contract.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 11 of 12 (n) Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret provisions of this Contract, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled.
(o) Necessary Acts and Further Assurances. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Contract.
(p) Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Contract for each covenant and term of a condition herein.

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT between October 9, 2023
City of Atwater and United Pavement Maintenance, Inc Page 12 of 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, three (3) identical counterparts of this Contract, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Parties hereinabove named, on the day and year first herein written.

CITY OF ATWATER, a Municipal Corporation UNITED PAVEMENT MAINTANCE, INC

By: _______________________________________ By:________________________________________ Lori Waterman, City Manager Contractor licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of contractors.

ATTEST:

By: ________________________________________
Kory Billings, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________________
Frank Splendorio, City Attorney
ACCOUNT DATA: LICENSE NO. ______________________________ PROJECT NO. 23-06 TAXPAYER I.D. NO. ________________________ Contract No. _________________________________ VENDOR NO. ______________________________ Project Account No./Amount: ADDRESS: ________________________________ 1010-1080-X007 / $ 564,267 PHONE: ___________________________________ FAX: _____________________________________
EMAIL: ___________________________________
By: __________________________________________ (SEAL)
Finance Director Verification

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

October 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Thompson, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director

PREPARED
BY:

John Seymour, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Final Project Study Report for the Bellevue Road Rehabilitation/Realignment Project (Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Thompson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 3436-23 approving the final Project Study Report, prepared by Mark Thomas & Company of Fresno, California, for the realignment and extension of Bellevue Road from Parade Street to Olive Avenue; and additionally authorize the Community Development Department to proceed with the Project Approval and Environmental Document; or
Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

Measure V is a county-wide, half-cent Transportation Sales Tax Measure approved by Merced County voters in November 2016, under which MCAG is authorized to administer the proceeds. The voter-approved Transportation Expenditure Plan programs 44% of funds for Regional Projects, 50% of funds for Local Projects (at least 20% of which must be set aside for Alternative Modes Projects), 5% of funds for Transit, and 1% of funds for administration. Voters authorized the Measure V Transportation Sales Tax for 30 years, terminating on March 31, 2047. Funding is provided from the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to MCAG, which in turn distributes the allocated funds.

The 44% of funds allocated for Regional Projects is further divided into an Eastside share of 27% and a Westside share of 17%, with the dividing line between the two being the San Joaquin River. Two committees were established to recommend Regional Projects. The Eastside Regional Projects Committee and the Westside Regional Projects Committee each consist of one councilmember from each city within the jurisdiction and each County Supervisor whose district includes area east or west of the river. The Regional Projects Committees make recommendations to the MCAG

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

Agenda Report - Page 2

Governing Board, which has authority to oversee funds.

After adopting new Regional Projects Policies on April 15, 2021, MCAG issued the Measure V Call for Projects for the 2021 Implementation Plan on April 30, 2021 with an application deadline of August 31, 2021. The East Side Regional Projects Committee met twice in October 2021 to discuss Regional Project Candidate Evaluation Forms, projects programming, and projected revenues and cash flows, then approved project funding recommendations to be made to the MCAG Governing Board at their regular meeting of November 18, 2021. The project was included in the funding recommendations made by the East Side Regional Projects Committee and approved unanimously by the MCAG Board.

Following approval of the Regional Projects Committees’ recommendations, a Draft Measure V 2021 Implementation Plan was presented by staff to the MCAG Board at public hearing on December 16, 2021. The MCAG Governing Board unanimously adopted the Measure V 2021 Implementation Plan with no changes to the draft plan.

The adopted Measure V 2021 Implementation Plan includes programmed expenditure for the Bellevue Road Rehabilitation and Realignment Project, described as follows:
"$200,000 for a project study report. This is a multi-jurisdiction project of the City of Atwater and the County of Merced. It would realign and reconstruct a portion of Bellevue Road between Grove Avenue and Parade Street immediately west of the City of Atwater. This project was programmed in the 2021 update."

MCAG staff developed a Draft Master Measure V Regional Project Funding Agreement and refined it with input from member agencies. The City of Atwater approved the Master Measure V Regional project Funding Agreement at its regular meeting of the City Council on December 10, 2018. The Measure V Regional Project Funding Agreement (project specific) includes an estimated project completion date, requires the initiation of consultant contracts and/or start of construction within six (6) months from the execution date of the agreement, and requires MCAG to receive and process invoices for member agency reimbursement within thirty (30) days.

On January 10, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution No. 3276-22 approving budget amendment No. 18 and amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget to establish a budget within the Measure V regional Fund for the preparation of the PSR-E for the Bellevue Road project.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

The PSR Project funding ($200,000) was generated by the Measure V half cent transportation sales tax and allocated by MCAG to the Regional Project.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

Agenda Report - Page 3

This item is consistent with the Major Regional Transportation Improvement Projects identified on page 3-11 of the Circulation Element in the 2000 General Plan.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

The Project Study Report analyzed two primary proposed alternatives for the realignment. The first alternative proposes shifting the alignment of Bellevue to the south, beginning at Parade Street and then rejoining the existing road segment at Olive Avenue. The second alternative proposes widening the existing private portion of the road to a 4 lane arterial.

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This has been routed to all internal departments for review.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The project was presented at City Council on 8/23/2021, 1/10/2022, and 8/22/2022 and at a multi-agency town hall 5/30/2023. Stakeholders meeting was hosted by the City of Atwater on 02/03/2022 with invited representatives from Dole International and the County of Merced.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is not a "Project" as defined under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code in that it would not directly or foreseeably indirectly significantly impact the physical environment; therefore this item is not subject to analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

The steps following City Council approval will include the City Manager, or her designee, adopting the project study report, and the City Clerk routing the approved PSR to MCAG. The Cities current adopted budget FY 23-24 contains sufficient funding for the environmental portion of this project, which will be initiated after the approval of this PSR.

Submitted by:

Greg Thompson, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director Approved by:

Lori Waterman, City Manager

Agenda Report - Page 4

Attachments:

1. 3436-23 Approves the Final Project Study Report for the Realignment and Extension of Bellevue Road

2. Final PSR-PDS_2023-09-19

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER
RESOLUTION NO. 3436-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER APPROVING THE FINAL

PROJECT STUDY REPORT, PREPARED BY

MARK THOMAS & COMPANY OF FRESNO,

CALIFORNIA FOR THE REALIGNMENT AND

EXTENSION OF BELLEVUE ROAD FROM
PARADE STREET TO OLIVE AVENUE; AND

ADDITIONALLY AUTHORIZE THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED

WITH THE PROJECT APPROVAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED).

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution No. 3276-22 approving budget amendment No. 18 and amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget to establish a budget within the Measure V regional Fund for the preparation of the PSR-E for the Bellevue Road project; and
WHEREAS, Measure V is a county-wide, half-cent Transportation Sales Tax Measure approved by Merced County voters in November 2016, under which MCAG is authorized to administer the proceeds; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by the City of Atwater Community Development Department on June 22, 2022 and received on July 29, 2022, with Mark Thomas & Company of Fresno, California being selected to perform the Project Study Report-Project Development Support; and
WHEREAS, a draft Project Study Report-Project Development Support was received and reviewed by the City of Atwater Community Development Department Staff on June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Project Study Report analyzed two primary proposed alternatives for the realignment with the first alternative shifting the alignment of Bellevue to the south, beginning at Parade Street and then rejoining the existing road segment at Olive Avenue, and the second alternative widening the existing private portion of the road to a 4 lane arterial; and

Resolution No. 3436-23 Page 2
WHEREAS, this item is not a "Project" as defined under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code in that it would not directly or foreseeably indirectly significantly impact the physical environment; therefore this item is not subject to analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby authorize acceptance of the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project Study Report-Project Development Support as described in “EXHIBIT A,” attached hereto and additionally authorize the community development department to proceed with the PA&ED.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 9th day of October 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

10 - Merced – Bellevue
Expenditure Authorization (EA)/ID –N/A
September 2023
Project Study Report-Project Development Support
(PSR-PDS)
To
Request Programming for Capital Support
(Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase)
On Bellevue Road
Between Olive Avenue
And Parade Street

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

ACCEPT RISK IDENTIFIED

IN THIS PSR-PDS AND
ATTACHED RISK REGISTER:

John Seymour, City of Atwater, City Engineer
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:

Greg Thompson, City of Atwater Deputy City Manager
APPROVED:

Justin Vinson, City of Atwater Date
Public Works Director

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
1 Vicinity Map

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
2 This project study report-project development support has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.
2023-09-19
Ed Noriega REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE
06/30/25
61555
EDGAR A. NORIEGA

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
3 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4 Project Description: .............................................................................................. 4

2. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 5

3. PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................... 6 Purpose: ................................................................................................................. 6 Need: ..................................................................................................................... 6

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (TEPA) ......... 6 a) Preliminary Assessment Findings ................................................................. 7 b) Future PA/ED Traffic Scope ......................................................................... 9 i) Analysis Years and Study Periods ............................................................. 9 ii) Study Area ................................................................................................. 9 iii) Methodology and Measures of Effectiveness ........................................... 9 iv) Data Collection ........................................................................................ 10 v) Travel Demand Forecasting .................................................................... 10 vi) Intersection Control Evaluation Process ................................................. 11

5. DEFICIENCIES .................................................................................................... 11 VMT & Travel Time Savings ............................................................................. 11

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION .............................................. 11

7. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 12 a) Alternative I ................................................................................................. 13 b) Alternative II ............................................................................................... 13 c) No Build Alternative ................................................................................... 14

8. RIGHT-OF-WAY .................................................................................................. 15

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT .................................................................. 16

10. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 17

11. FUNDING ............................................................................................................ 18

12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 19

13. RISKS ................................................................................................................... 19

14. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION ..................................................... 20

15. PROJECT REVIEWS ........................................................................................ 20

16. PROJECT PERSONNEL ................................................................................... 21

17. ATTACHMENTS (Number of pages) ............................................................... 22

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
4 1. INTRODUCTION
The development of a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Document (PID) provides an opportunity for local and regional agencies as well as Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) to achieve consensus on the purpose and need, scope, and schedule of a project.

The purpose for using the PSR-PDS document is to gain approval for the project studies to move into a Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. The PSRPDS is used to estimate and program the capital outlay support cost necessary to complete the studies and work needed during the PA&ED and to provide the basis for including a project in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).

The required information is reduced with much of the detail being completed during PA&ED. Because of the reduction in the level of effort, specific work which must be completed is listed in this document.

Project Description:

The City of Atwater (City) in partnership with the County of Merced (County) has initiated this PSR-PDS to evaluate improvements to a local road alignment that will help relieve congestion and improve traffic flow through the City along Bellevue Road. During the PA&ED phase, further studies will be done to determine any preexisting deficiencies or safety issues along Bellevue Road.

The City proposes to construct an approximately 1.6-mile-long, 4-lane arterial road in Merced County. The proposed Bellevue Road realignment will begin between Olive Avenue and Grove Avenue, east of State Route 99. Bellevue Road will be realigned south of the existing Bellevue Road, then conform near the Parade Street and Bellevue Road intersection. New intersection connections will be required at Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. The project will also include Class IV bike lanes.

All improvements will be designed to the City of Atwater Standards.

The project will provide connectivity between State Route 99 and the Castle Commerce Center located near the east side of Atwater. Currently, Bellevue is a public road, closed to the public (between Vine Avenue and Gipson Street) under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved for Dole Packaged Foods between Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. This causes an additional 2.5 miles of travel to navigate to the State Route 99/West Side interchange from the City. The road realignment will provide a direct route and reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
5 Project Limits Bellevue Road
Between Grove Avenue and Parade Street
Number of Alternatives 2 and “No Build” Alternative
Capital Outlay Support
Estimate PA&ED
$2,654,000 - $2,782,000
Capital Outlay Construction
Cost Range
$33,300,000 - $34,900,000
Capital Outlay Right-of-Way
Cost Range
$4,925,000 - $7,750,000
Funding Source Local Funding (Measure V)
Type of Facility 4-lane Arterial
Number of Structures 0
Anticipated Environmental
Determination or Document
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Routine Environmental Assessment/Finding of
No Significant Impact
Legal Description In Merced County in and near the City of Atwater
Project Development Category Category 2A
A range of estimates is provided for programming purposes. This document will be used to collaborate with MCAG and Caltrans to program future construction funds.

2. BACKGROUND
The project is included in the most current Regional Transportation Plan, was approved as recommended by the County Board of Supervisors on May 8, 2018, and was adopted by Resolution 3250-21 as a prioritized Tier 1 project by the Atwater City Council on August 23, 2021.

The City of Atwater and County of Merced have received funding through Merced County’s Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Projects Funds to complete a PSRPDS to determine the costs, schedules, right-of-way needs, and additional documentation needed to request funding to complete the design and construction of the project. It is anticipated that future phases will be funded by Merced County Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Project Funds.

On September 20, 2022, a kick-off meeting was held between the City, the County and the consultants for the PID Phase. At the meeting, it was confirmed that the City standards will be used.

In recognition of this road’s local and regional significance, the City of Atwater, County of Merced, and MCAG support the proposed project improvements for Bellevue Road.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
6 3. PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose:

The purpose of the project is to:
• Improve accessibility and mobility of goods and persons in Atwater; • Provide a direct route from the SR 99/Westside Boulevard interchange to the Castle Commerce Center;
• Reduce VMT;
• Reduce travel time;
• Provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Accommodate local development and provide consistency with existing and planned local and regional development;
Need:

The Project will deliver roughly 1.6 miles of a four-lane urban major arterial, with Class IV bike lanes. The project alignment spans across the City of Atwater and Merced County right of ways. The project entails realigning Bellevue Road south of the Dole Packaged Foods campus, between just west of Grove Avenue and Atwater Canal, and restriping Bellevue Road between the Atwater Canal and Parade Street. Bellevue Road is currently closed to traffic within the developed portion of the Dole Packaged Foods campus, requiring the public to take extensive detours to access the Castle Commerce Center and the City of Atwater. These detours contribute to additional vehicle miles traveled and additional travel time, reducing the accessibility and mobility of goods and persons to the heart of Atwater.

The proposed project will add, enhance, and improve circulation network choices for local motorists to access and leave the Castle Commerce Center and Atwater more efficiently.

VMT will also be decreased as Bellevue will provide a more direct route.

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (TEPA)
The TEPA has been prepared per the Caltrans District 10 PSR-E guidelines and the main goal of this project is to reduce VMT and increase connectivity. During the PA&ED phase, further analysis for VMT and delay reduction will be studied. It is anticipated that this study will support the purpose and need of the project.

The TEPA (see Attachment I - TEPA) is limited to an assessment of readily available data, macro-level analysis, and evaluation according to the PSR-PDS guidelines. The following data sources were used to prepare the TEPA:
• AM and PM peak hour traffic counts collected in February 2023 from the City of Atwater (City) at the study intersections:
o SR-99 SB Ramps / Westside Boulevard
o SR-99 NB Ramps / Westside Boulevard
o Olive Avenue / Westside Boulevard / Bellevue Road
o Grove Avenue / Bellevue Road

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
7 o Vine Avenue / Bellevue Road
o Vine Avenue / Fruitland Avenue
o N Winton Way / Fruitland Avenue
o N Winton Way / Bellevue Road
o SR 99 NB On-Ramp / Atwater Boulevard
• Signal Timing Data from Caltrans and the City
• Collision history between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 • Three-County Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy Air Quality Conformity Model (RTP/SCS)
Figures 2-5 of the TEPA provide the Existing 2023, Year 2050 No Project, and Year 2050 With Project (Alternative 1 and 2) lane configurations, intersection control and AM and PM peak hour volumes, for all study intersections. The Year 2050 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study locations were based on information from available traffic studies in the City and the Three-County Travel Demand Model. Existing, Year 2050 No Project, and Year 2050 With Project volumes are presented as part of the preliminary assessment. Per the PSR-PDS guidelines, the forecasts will be prepared in greater detail and updated during the PA&ED phase to include the most recent available data and will incorporate the MCAG Travel Demand Model.
a) Preliminary Assessment Findings
Traffic operations of the study area were analyzed using Synchro 11 software, based on procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, 6 th Edition. Analysis results were measured in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a measure of traffic operating conditions with LOS A indicating free flow traffic conditions with little to zero delay while LOS F indicates over-saturated conditions where traffic flow exceeds the design capacity and results in long queues and delays.

Existing Conditions
Intersection Analysis
Table 4 of the TEPA shows the existing level of service and intersection delay for the existing study intersections. Four of the intersections are currently side street stopcontrolled, two are all-way stop-controlled, two are signalized and one is uncontrolled.

All intersections in the study operate at LOS C or better.

Collision History
Caltrans staff provided the collision history at the five SR 99 freeway ramp facilities for the most recent three-year study period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019 as provided in Table 5 of the TEPA. All study intersections had higher collision rates than those of similar facilities across the State. However, no fatalities were reported at any study intersection.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
8 Year 2050 No Project and With Project
Intersection Analysis
Table 7 of the TEPA (shown below) presents the Year 2050 No Project and With Project level of service and intersection delay at all three study locations. Under No Project conditions, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better. For the Year 2050 With Project analysis, two intersections would operate at delay LOS F: the Westside Boulevard/SR 99 Southbound Ramps intersection and the Westside Boulevard/Bellevue Road/Olive Avenue intersection. The final intersection geometry will be detailed and studied further during the PA&ED phase with detailed traffic forecasts.

Qualitative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Travel Time Analysis Bellevue Road is currently closed to the public between Vine Avenue and Gipson Street, which forces drivers to reroute around the Bellevue Road closure. This project Delay3
LOS Delay3LOS Delay3LOS

1. Westside Boulevard / SR 99
Southbound Ramps SSSC
AM
PM
4 (14)
6 (16)
A (B)
A (C)
6 (17)
26 (50)
A (C)
D (F)
6 (17)
26 (50)
A (C)
D (F)

2. Westside Boulevard / SR 99
Northbound Ramps SSSC
AM
PM
3 (14)
2 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (19)
2 (20)
A (C)
A (C)
1 (19)
2 (20)
A (C)
A (C)

3. Westside Boulevard /
Bellevue Road / Olive Avenue SSSC
AM
PM
5 (18)
5 (17)
A (C)
A (C)
11 (83)
6 (46)
B (F)
A (E)
11 (89)
6 (46)
B (F)
A (E)

4. Bellevue Road / Grove
Avenue SSSC
AM
PM
3 (13)
3 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
2 (20)
1 (19)
A (C)
A (C)
2 (20)
1 (19)
A (C)
A (C)

5. Bellevue Road / Vine
Avenue AWSC / SSSC4
AM
PM
8 8
A
A
2 (12)
2 (9)
A (B)
A (A)
2 (12)
2 (9)
A (B)
A (A)

6. Vine Avenue / Fruitland
Avenue AWSC
AM
PM
9 9
A
A
8 8
A
A
9 8
A
A

7. Fruitland Avenue / North
Winton Way Signalized
AM
PM
8 7
A
A
8 7
A
A
8 7
A
A

8. Bellevue Road / North
Winton Way Signalized
AM
PM
24 25
C
C
26 25
C
C
26 25
C
C

9. Atwater Boulevard / SR 99
Northbound Ramps Uncontrolled
AM
PM
1 (7)
1 (7)
A (A)
A (A)
1 (7)
1 (7)
A (A)
A (A)
1 (7)
1 (7)
A (A)
A (A)
Control1
Intersection
Notes:

1. Traffic control type (Signal = Signalized; SSSC = Side Street Stop-Controlled; AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled; Uncontrol = Uncontrolled).

2. AM = Weekday morning peak hour, PM = Weekday evening peak hour.

3. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Side street stop-controlled delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Movement Delay). Delay calculated per HCM 6th methodologies.

4. Intersection 5 is AWSC under No Project Conditions, and SSSC under Project Conditions.

Bold indicates at or over capacity operations.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
No Project
Conditions
Plus Project
Alternative I
Conditions
Plus Project
Alternative II
Conditions
Design Year 2050
Peak
Hour2

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
9 will restore the direct route along Bellevue Road, providing travel time savings and VMT reductions.
b) Future PA/ED Traffic Scope
A traffic scope is presented for the PA&ED phase of the project per Article 5 of the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) guidelines prepared by Caltrans.

This scope should be reviewed prior to initiation of the PA&ED phase as this analysis will be used to support the purpose and need for the project. i) Analysis Years and Study Periods
Weekday AM (peak hour between 7-9 AM) and Weekday PM (peak hour between 4-6 PM) traffic conditions shall be analyzed for the following analysis years:
• Existing conditions
• Opening Year (2030 or earlier)
• Design Year (2050)
ii) Study Area
Based on the location of the project and its potential to impact local traffic operations, the following intersections along Bellevue Road/Westside Boulevard should be evaluated:
• Westside Boulevard / SR 99 Southbound Ramps
• Westside Boulevard / SR 99 Northbound Ramps
• Westside Boulevard-Bellevue Road/Olive Avenue
• Bellevue Road / Grove Avenue
• Bellevue Road / Vine Avenue
• Fruitland Avenue / North Winton Way
• Fruitland Avenue / Vine Avenue
• Bellevue Road / North Winton Way
• Atwater Boulevard / SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp
iii) Methodology and Measures of Effectiveness
The intersection analysis should be consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, 6 th Edition. The measures of effectiveness (MOEs) shall include the following for each intersection: 1) level of service; 2) intersection delay; 3) 95th percentile queue lengths. Additionally, the following measures of effectiveness should be considered in the analysis:
• Vehicle Demand
• Vehicles Served
• % Demand Served
• Total Stops

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
10 • Stop/Vehicle
• Vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT)
• Average Speed
• Fuel Used
• Total Emissions
iv) Data Collection
Intersection Traffic Counts
It is recommended that new AM and PM peak period traffic counts be used at the existing study intersections. While traffic counts were collected in February 2023, new counts should be taken from three locations at the start of the PA&ED phase to determine an annual growth rate which will then be applied to the remaining study intersections.

Collision Data
Collision data for each study intersection along the SR 99 corridor for the most recent three-year period should be obtained from Caltrans’ Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS). Collision data for the remaining study intersections not on the State Highway System should be summarized from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). For intersections with a high number of collisions (>5 per year), recommended countermeasures will be developed and proposed to remedy the identified safety concerns.

VMT Evaluation
The Caltrans Transportation Analysis under CEQA and Caltrans Transportation Analysis Framework, provide guidance on how to estimate the induced vehicle travel for transportation projects. These documents will be used to estimate VMT with and without the project.
v) Travel Demand Forecasting
The most recent version of the single-County MCAG Travel Demand Model (TDM) should be used to develop traffic demand forecasts for the study area. The model should be locally validated to current conditions prior to developing traffic demand forecasts. The traffic forecasts from the TDM should not be used directly in predicting future year traffic demand forecasts. Instead, changes in the traffic demand between the validated base and future year models (delta method) should be added to Existing Conditions demand to determine the adjusted future year traffic forecasts.

The TDM will also be used to capture the travel times for the following routes:

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
11 • Bellevue Road/Shaffer Road intersection (Downtown Atwater) to SR 99 at Liberty Avenue Interchange
• SR 99 at Liberty Avenue Interchange to Bellevue Road/Shaffer Road intersection (Downtown Atwater)
vi) Intersection Control Evaluation Process
As part of the analysis for the Design Year (2050) traffic conditions, an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) should be performed at the following intersections to determine the most appropriate alternative:

1. Westside Boulevard/SR 99 Southbound Ramps

2. Westside Boulevard/SR 99 Northbound Ramps
It is recommended that an ICE be performed during the PA&ED project phase.

Additionally, a signal warrant analysis will be completed for all unsignalized study intersections using California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Section 4C.04.

5. DEFICIENCIES
VMT & Travel Time Savings
Currently, Bellevue Road is closed to traffic between Vine Avenue and Gipson Street for a CUP approved for Dole Packaged Foods. This requires extensive detours on local roadways for motorists accessing the City of Atwater or SR 99. This project will restore Bellevue Road as a direct connection between the northern portion of the City and the SR 99 Westside Boulevard Interchange. This project will reduce VMT and travel time for motorists. Quantitative analysis will be carried out in the next phase of this project to demonstrate the VMT reduction and travel time savings the Bellevue Road project will bring.

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan 2000, County’s General Plan 2030 and Merced County’s Regional (MCAG) Bicycle Transportation Plan (2008).

The 2000 concept for this segment is to widen Bellevue Road into a 4-lane urban major arterial. Additionally, the MCAG Bicycle Transportation Plan shows the Bellevue Road concept as having a proposed bike lane between SR 99 and Shaffer Road.

The existing Bellevue Road between Olive Avenue and Gipson Street is a 2-lane roadway with minimal shoulders, no bike lanes and no pedestrian facilities. The proposed Bellevue Road is a 4-lane major arterial with separated 8’ sidewalks, a Class IV bike lane on both sides of the roadway and a raised median. The Class IV lanes are proposed to be installed

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
12 between Grove Avenue and Gipson Street, with Shared Lane Markings between Gipson Street and the Atwater Canal. The City’s intent is to connect Bellevue with a future multiuse path along the Atwater Canal. Bellevue east of the Atwater Canal is a 4-lane roadway with a two-way left turn lane. The proposed cross section will transition from raised median to a two-way left turn lane at Gipson Street and ensures widening of the Atwater Canal bridge is not needed. Sidewalks on both sides of the road will ensure pedestrian accessibility and safety. The proposed sidewalk will connect to the existing 5’ sidewalk on the east.

The project is not consistent with the City’s Storm Drain Plan layout within the City General Plan of 2000. The City is currently working on updating their General Plan and has stated that the Storm Drain Plan in their General Plan from 2000 is out of date. This project has proposed storm drain basins that will be placed strategically to maximize land utilization.

7. ALTERNATIVES
Two design alternatives were considered for the alignment of Bellevue Road. The first alternative proposes to realign Bellevue Road to the south of the existing Bellevue alignment. The second alternative proposes to widen the existing Bellevue Road. The first alternative is the preferred based on the project cost and impacts to surrounding land use, particularly the Dole Packaged Foods Facility.

The majority of the project is outside of the City of Atwater, but within its Sphere of Influence. The City and County have acknowledged that the project will be designed using the City of Atwater Design Standards. The City of Atwater General Plan states Bellevue Road has a speed of 45 mph; however, the western portion of the segment will remain rural for an extended period of time, so it can be traversed at a higher speed. The design speed varies along the project and switches from 55 mph on the west to 45 mph about 1,000 feet west of the Orchard Park alignment.

Alternative I
Alternative I entails realigning Bellevue Road south of the Dole Packaged Foods campus between just west of Grove Avenue and the Atwater Canal and restriping between Gipson Street and Parade Street. Bellevue Road would be widened to four lanes beginning between Olive Avenue and Grove Avenue to the West and conform to the four-lane with a two-way left turn lane condition to the East.

Alternative II
Alternative II entails widening along the existing Bellevue Road alignment between Grove Avenue and the Atwater Canal and restriping between Gipson Street and Parade Street.

Bellevue Road would be widened to four lanes beginning between Olive Avenue and Grove Avenue to the West and conform to the four-lane with a two-way left turn lane condition to the East.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
13 The following Bellevue Road alternatives are discussed below. a) Alternative I
Alternative I would deliver a realignment of approximately 1.6 miles of 4-lane arterial roadway with a Class IV bikeway beginning at Olive Avenue on the east and ending at the Atwater Canal (about 600 feet west of Parade Street). Bellevue would be widened from a two-lane to a four-lane roadway and includes a raised median, sidewalks and a Class IV bikeway. This alternative realigns Bellevue Road about 750 feet south of the existing Bellevue Road. This alignment contains horizontal curves with no superelevation designed for 55 mph on the west and 45 mph on the eastern half. The proposed alignment cuts through the Dole Packaged Foods agricultural land but would avoid impacts to their basin locations, parking lots and buildings. See Attachment B for the proposed project improvements and cross sections for Alternative I.

The realigned Bellevue Road would require connections to existing roads to be reestablished. Improvements to Grove Avenue, Vine Avenue, Orchard Park Avenue, the existing Bellevue Road, and Gipson Street would be implemented to maintain access for all travelers. Additionally, a cul-de-sac is proposed along Vine Avenue to ensure there would be no public access to the portion of the existing Bellevue Road that is closed to the public.

The project aims to improve accessibility and circulation to and through the City by providing a Class IV bikeway and sidewalks which are consistent with existing and planned facilities by local and regional development efforts.

Alternative I would be designed consistent with the latest Highway Design Manual and in accordance with local design standards for the City. Nonstandard features are not anticipated.

During the PA&ED phase, intersections will be analyzed through the ICE process for the most appropriate alternatives.

The estimated construction cost for this alternative is approximately $33,300,000 as shown on the Preliminary Cost Estimate (see Attachment D). The cost estimate includes the preliminary total of Roadway Cost.
b) Alternative II
Alternative II would deliver a roadway widening of approximately 1.2 miles of 4-lane arterial roadway with a Class IV bikeway beginning at Olive Avenue on the east and ending at the Atwater Canal (about 600 feet west of Parade Street). Bellevue would be widened from a two-lane to a four-lane roadway and include a raised median, sidewalks and a Class IV bikeway. This alternative contains no curves and is aligned along the

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
14 existing Bellevue Road. See Attachment C for the proposed project improvements and cross sections for Alternative I.

The proposed alignment would have major impacts to the Dole Packaged Foods Plant.

The widening would impact the plant’s employee parking lots east of Vine Avenue on the north and south side of Bellevue. This would cause a significant parking reconfiguration for Dole that could affect employee access to the plant. This alignment would also affect truck accessibility of the plant as it cuts through the Dole truck staging area. The Dole Packaged Foods pond on the north side of Bellevue would be affected with the roadway widening. Mitigating the impact to the north pond would require regrading and relocating the pond farther north.

According to our field assessment and a LiDAR surface obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), there is an elevation difference between the existing parking lot on the south side of Bellevue Road and the existing Bellevue Road centerline. Assuming the project would maintain the existing roadway grade for the proposed profile, a retaining wall is proposed between Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue.

The project aims to improve accessibility and circulation to and through the City by providing a Class IV bikeway and sidewalks that are consistent with existing and planned facilities by local and regional development efforts.

Alternative II would be designed consistent with the latest Highway Design Manual and in accordance with local design standards for the City. Nonstandard features are not anticipated.

During the PA&ED phase, intersections will be analyzed through the ICE process for the most appropriate alternatives.

The estimated construction cost for this alternative is approximately $34,900,000 as shown on the Preliminary Cost Estimate (see Attachment E). The cost estimate includes the preliminary total of Roadway Cost.
c) No Build Alternative
As stated in Section 4, the current intersection operations of Bellevue Road are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service under 2050 No-Project traffic conditions; however, proposing no alternatives is a detriment to travel delay for users trying to access SR 99 and the City. In addition to delay, the No Build Alternative contributes to a higher VMT caused by users not being able to take a direct route.

Further studies will be done in the PA&ED phase to determine any existing conditions that may prove to be inefficient or unsafe for the traveling public.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
15 8. RIGHT-OF-WAY
Widening/ Realigning Bellevue Road would require additional right-of-way, allowing for two additional lanes as well as the construction of a 16-foot raised median, 6-foot buffered Class IV Bikeway, and two separated 8-foot sidewalks, and two 10-foot Public Utility Easements (PUEs). This widening would result in a total right-of-way increase from about 48 feet to 130 feet.

For Alternative I, there are a total of 9 fee parcels with a total fee area of 1,230,000 square feet. Alternative II has a total of 10 fee parcels with a total fee area of 781,000 square feet.

Although Alternative II has a smaller acquisition area, there would be a potentially higher cost associated with this alternative due to consideration of damages to the operations of Dole Packaged Foods. The Alternative II alignment and widening would impact two parking lots, ponds, a propane tank, fencing and more. This impact is accounted for in the cost estimate.

While damages are accounted for, this study does not account for any impacts to the Regional Water Quality Control Permit Requirements for the facility. At this stage, there is not sufficient information on these impacts and further coordination and meetings with Dole Packaged Foods are required.

The opening of Bellevue Road, especially along the existing alignment (Alternative II), would greatly impact the amount of traffic traveling past the Dole Packaged Foods Plant.

Severance damages due to this dramatic change in traffic, which could impact their operations, are not accounted for.

There is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) between Merced County and Dole Packaged Foods (see Attachment K – Conditional Use Permit between Dole Packaged Foods and Merced County). This document was officially recorded on January 14th, 1994. The document permits Dole to use Bellevue Road between Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue to expand their agricultural products processing facility and add 192,000 square feet of structures and additional parking and landscaping on their 157-acre site. The CUP states that Dole shall dedicate to Merced County a swath of land (20’-40’) along the Bellevue Road realignment between Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. Further coordination will be needed to ensure that the project team and Dole are in agreement on their understanding of this document and how it will be enforced. For programming purposes, the current right-of-way cost estimate does not account for this dedication of land.

At this time, no temporary construction easement costs are included. It is assumed that all work can be done from the public/ permanent right of way.

The current cost estimated for the project right-of-way is $4,500,000 for each alternative and is shown on the attached Conceptual Cost Estimate Form (see Attachments F & G - Conceptual Cost Estimate Form – ROW).

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
16 Utilities:

The Caltrans process is being used to acquire utility mapping, determine liability, request relocation mapping, and issue notice-to-owner letters for relocations. Thus far, Utility A letters have been sent to all utility companies identified through USA North and mapping has been received.

According to utility mapping received, overhead electrical lines are situated along Bellevue Road, Grove Avenue, Vine Avenue, and Orchard Park Avenue. PG&E overhead transmission lines are located on the south side of Bellevue Road along the entire project area. While Alternative I avoids the majority of the transmission pole relocations because of the southernly realignment, Alternative II would require the costly relocation of these poles.

The utility companies with potential conflicts within the public right-of-way include:
• Pacific Bell
• PG&E
• Comcast
• Merced Irrigation District (Electric and Water)
Existing facilities that are found to be in conflict will need to be relocated. Further investigation within the PA&ED phase may find additional facilities in conflict.

The drainage basins proposed for Alternative I and Alternative II have been schematically placed and sized. During the PA&ED phase the basins will be further sized and placed according to drainage design and analysis.

Railroad:

There are currently no railways located within the project limits.

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
This is a multi-jurisdictional priority project for the City of Atwater, the County of Merced and MCAG. These three agencies as well as the Consultant team were invited to the KickOff Meeting on September 20, 2022. At this meeting, the project Purpose and Need, the project alternatives, and the PSR-PDS approach were discussed. The team also discussed the importance of coordination with Dole Packaged Foods on their plant operations and potential impacts of the project on their production.

A meeting with Dole Packaged Foods occurred on October 10, 2022, that included the following attendees:

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
17 • City of Atwater (Greg Thompson, Tina Thurman, Michael Hayes, Justin Vinson) • Merced County (Eric Zetz, Joe Giulian)
• Dole Packaged Foods (Larry Rohm, Keith Gresham)
• Mark Thomas (Ed Noriega, Alyssa Nishikawa)
The goal of the meeting was to keep Dole informed on the project and to gain an understanding of the operations of their facility. This may ensure a favorable coordinated outcome for both the project and the Dole Packaged Foods facility. It is anticipated that more meetings with this stakeholder will occur as the project progresses into the PA&ED phase.

As the project has developed and design alternatives were created, the City, County and MCAG provided feedback on all aspects of the PSR-PDS. A meeting was held virtually on June 7, 2023, to discuss the TEPA, Mini-Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (Mini-PEAR), and Alternatives comments that were received. The following were in attendance:
• City (Christina Thurman, Michael Hayes, Greg Thompson and Justin Vinson) • Consultants:
o Mark Thomas: Ed Noriega, Alyssa Nishikawa
o GPA: Marieka Schrader
o Fehr and Peers: Ronald Ramos
These meetings are expected to continue during the PA&ED phase with public meetings to be held as part of the environmental review process.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
A Mini-PEAR was prepared to identify the environmental issues, constraints, costs, and resource needs of the project. It is anticipated that avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may be taken to reduce any impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is anticipated that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation necessary under CEQA. If potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance are identified during preparation of technical studies, then preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required. The City will be the CEQA Lead Agency, and County will be a CEQA Responsible Agency for project encroachments into and effects on the County roadways. If federal funds are programmed for the project, a Routine Environmental Assessment to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) will be the appropriate level of environmental documentation under NEPA. Caltrans would be the Federal Lead Agency for NEPA. Based on the current workload and available resources, approximately 18 to 24 months will be required to complete the environmental review process. Supporting technical memorandums or technical studies are required to support the Environmental Document. Changes in project scope, alternatives, existing

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
18 environmental condition, and/or environmental laws or regulations will require reevaluation of the Mini-PEAR.

The following is the list of anticipated technical studies:
• Community Impact Assessment: Land Use, Growth, Community Impacts, Community Character and Cohesion, Environmental Justice, Utilities/Emergency Services (NEPA Only)
• Farmlands – Form NRCS-CPA-106 (NEPA Only)
• Traffic Operations Analysis Report
• Brief Visual Impact Memorandum (NEPA Only)
• Historic Property Survey Report
• Historic Resources Evaluation Report
• Section 106 / PRC 5024 & 5024.5 (NEPA Only)
• Archaeological Survey Report/ Finding of Effect
• Native American Consultation Outreach Letters
• Finding of Effect (NEPA Only)
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report • Initial Site Assessment
• Air Quality Report
• Noise Study Report
• Natural Environment Study
• Biological Assessment Informal Section 7 (NEPA Only)
• Aquatic Resources Delineation
• Section 4(f) Evaluation (NEPA Only)
The following is a list of the anticipated Permits:
• NPDES Notice of Intent
For a complete list of the technical studies required for the project, see Attachment J – Mini PEAR.

11. FUNDING
The City of Atwater and County of Merced have received funding for the PSR-PDS through Merced County’s Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Projects Funds.

The City and County are anticipating that the future phases for this project will be funded by Measure V as well.

At this time federal-aid and state funding has not been secured for future phases, however the City and County may look for opportunities.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
19 Capital Outlay Project Estimate
Range of Estimate Measure V Funds
Construction Right-ofWay Construction Right-ofWay
Alt. I $33,300,000 $4,925,000 TBD TBD
Alt. II $34,900,000 $7,750,000 TBD TBD
The level of detail available to develop these capital outlay project estimates is only accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only. The capital outlay project estimates should not be used to program or commit State-programmed capital outlay funds.

Capital Outlay Support Estimate
Capital outlay support estimate for programming PA&ED for this project: $2.7 million in Measure V.

12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date
(Month/Day/Year)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 12/1/2023
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 04/01/2024
CIRCULATE DPR & DED EXTERNALLY M120 12/01/2025
PA&ED M200 06/30/2026
The anticipated funding fiscal year for construction is 2027/28.

13. RISKS
As part of the PID phase of the project, a Risk Register has been completed and included as Attachment H - Risk Register of this report.

Several risks have been identified as having a potentially significant impact on the project.

Of the various types of risk (Environmental, Right-of-Way, Funding, and Design), Rightof-way may be the biggest threat to the project cost and schedule. Right-of-way must be acquired from several private businesses and agricultural parcels along Bellevue Road. Due to the preliminary nature of the project design, the full extent of right-of-way conflicts and necessary acquisitions remains unknown and could substantially affect the project cost and schedule.

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
20 The following project risk items are highlighted in the Risk Register as being “high-risk” to the project:
- The construction/ realignment of Bellevue Road requires multiple private businesses and agricultural parcels and could cause delay to R/W acquisition. - There is a Conditional Use Permit between Dole and the County. The CUP states that Dole must dedicate a 40’ and a 20’ swath of land along Bellevue Road. If Dole does not agree on the meaning of this CUP, there will be potential for project delay and increased R/W costs.
- As a result of the preliminary nature of Design, additional R/W parcels may be needed which could affect the right of way cost and schedule of the project. - As a result of the preliminary nature of Design, the extent of any utility conflicts to be impacted by the project are uncertain at this time. All utilities except the PG&E transmission lines appear to be under Franchise. If other easements exist, R/W cost would increase.
- An EIR may be needed for the project if potentially significant impacts are identified that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Preparation of an EIR could extend the project schedule.
- Currently, this project does not have solidified funding sources for the construction of the project. Funding will go through MCAG Measure V, however the City is looking for more funding sources to supplement.

14. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
FHWA approvals are not anticipated at this time. The proposed project is not located on the Interstate System.

The project requires the following coordination:

Local Agency
Coordination with:

Merced Irrigation District (MID)
Local Agency
Agreements with County of Merced

15. PROJECT REVIEWS
City of Atwater Date 8/24/2023
Merced County Date 8/24/2023

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
21 16. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Name Title Company Responsibility Phone Number
Justin Vinson Public Works Director City of Atwater Project Sponsor (209) 777-0273 Michael Hayes Contract City Engineer City of Atwater Project Sponsor (209) 357-6231 Greg Thompson Community Development
Director
City of Atwater Project Sponsor (209) 357-6233
Joe Giulian Supervising Engineer Merced County Project Sponsor (209) 385-7601 Ed Noriega Project Manager Mark Thomas Project Manager (530) 848-1222 Ronald Ramos Traffic Operations Practice
Leader
Fehr and Peers Traffic (925) 357-3403
Marieka
Schrader
Senior Associate
Environmental Planner
GPA Environmental (310) 792-2690
Bob Morrison Principal Monument Right-of-way (800) 577-0109

10 - Merced – Bellevue Road
Olive Avenue to Parade Street
22 17. ATTACHMENTS (Number of pages)
A. Vicinity Map (1)
B. Project Alternative I Plan & Cross Section (2)
C. Project Alternative II Plan & Cross Section (2)
D. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate – Alt I (11)
E. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate – Alt II (11)
F. Conceptual Cost Estimate Sections (Alt I) – Right-of-Way (4) G. Conceptual Cost Estimate Sections (Alt II) – Right-of-Way (4) H. Risk Register (2)
I. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA) (129) J. Mini Preliminary Environment Analysis Report (Mini-PEAR) (53) K. Conditional Use Permit between Dole Packaged Foods and Merced County (4)

ATTACHMENT A.

VICINITY MAP

FRUITLAN> AVE
<;� � � i �
ELK RD

LONGVIEW AVE

LQCAIJQN MAP

NO SCALE

BELLEVUE RD
i
I

FRUITLAND AVE
EXISTING ROAD#AY

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

ATTACHMENT B.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE I

PLAN & CROSS SECTION

BEGIN PAVEMENT

RECONSTRUCTION
'
I
\------------
�-
(E)R/W� I �
I
�\ \r-------�1 6' CLASS JV BIKEWAY
\\' .
? � I�
� ��

DESIGN SPEED DESIGN SPEED
55 MPH 45 MPH
RADIUS = 1,800'

CONCRETE DWY ANO PAO

SEE EXAMPLE IMAGE BELOW

SIGNALIZED BY ACTIVATION ON

VINE AVE FOR DOLE TRUCKS
>
.
w
;:

DESIGN SPEED = 55 MPH
6' CLASS IV BIKEWAY
t
_,,__
8' SIDEWALK
""'" """"'
LEGEND
� SICHMJN/lflfRSCCOON
A C&G

CONCRETE DWY AND PAD

SEE EXAMPLE IMAGE A BELOW

SIGNALIZED BY ACTIVATION ON

ORCHARD PARK AVE FOR DOLE TRUCKS

ABBREVIATIONS
(jj)
1"=100'
(jj)
1"=100'
RADIUS = 1,000'
DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH

IMAGE A, EXAMPLE LOCATION BULLARD AVE AND N MAPLE AVE

SIGNAL STAYS GREEN ALONG BULLARD AVE UNTIL ACTIVATED BY TRAFFIC

ON MAPLE (INTENDED FOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND TRUCKS)

CITY OF ATWATER

BELLEVUE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRICS
1111......11111
■■

LEGEND

REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK
ABBREVIATIONS ""'"""""' £DC£()f"P,,,VEM£Nr
UW - UJCCOf��III\Y
(C) - CXISrwG
CONFORM �����i���;= ���
9 � ��
=-t---<0h)-�-e -����c--
--=-----<oh1=--=--e=- --
{El R/W
OOL
1 f
I
A

POTENTIAL

DRAINAGE BASIN
�CURB
1�1 ��i•� �i� �� ��t ��1•.w 1�1
-c.t/t _
_ =�-"-====-"--==- �
EXtSTH:;�_;-
CITY OF ATWATER 111......111111
BELLEVUE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT ■ ■

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRICS

HARK THOMAS
ATTACHMENT C.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE II

PLAN & CROSS SECTION

(E) R/W
I' I
6' CLASS IV BIKEWAY
. I

DESIGN SPEED DESIGN SPEED
55 MPH 45 MPH

TRUCK ACCESS IMPACTS
8EU£',1J£ """°

BELLEVUE ROAD
SEGnON A-A

ELEVATION DIFFERENCE

OF PARKING LOT WILL

REQUIRE RETAINING
WALL
t t

TRUCK ACCESS IMPACTS
WSSI DCl.JNl<TOR
LEGEND
r BASIN REGRADING,

SHIFT BASIN
NORTHERNLY �
I

RELOCATE OVERHEAD

ELECTRIC LINES

ABBREVIATIONS
£DCCOFPAVCJIENT
E1'W - £DGCOfm4� WAY
(,:) -

RELOCATE OVERHEAD

ELECTRIC LINES

CITY OF ATWATER

TC - TOPOFCIJRB
R - IWJlllS
1"=100'
1"=100'

BELLEVUE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRICS

LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS

TC TOPOFCURB
' -
1�1 ��i•� �i� �� ��t ��1•.w 1�1 _ Jt_=====-==="--====-"--=====-•f� EXtSTH:;�_;--

BELLEVUE ROAD
SECTION 8-8

CITY OF ATWATER

BELLEVUE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRICS
1111......11111
■■

ATTACHMENT D.

PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

ALTERNATIVE I

PROJECT
EA: N/A
PID: N/A District-County-Route:
10-MERBellevue Road
PM:

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 25,466,280 $ 33,281,092
$ - $ -
$ 25,466,280 $ 33,281,092
$ 4,925,000 $ 4,925,000
$ 30,392,000 $ 38,207,000
$ 2,547,000 $ 2,654,000
$ 3,820,000 $ 3,981,000
$ 500,000 $ 521,000
$ 3,820,000 $ 3,981,000
$ 10,687,000 $ 11,137,000
$ 41,100,000 $ 49,350,000
Programmed Amount
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 6 / 2023
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 4 / 2028
Number of Working Days = 400
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 1 / 2029 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 10 / 2029
12/1/2023
6/30/2026
12/1/2027
12/1/2027
4/1/2028
Date Phone
(530) 848-1222
Ed Noriega, Project Manager Date Phone
Copyright 2018 California Department of Transportation All Rights PLEASE READ ALL THE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE CELLS SHOWING RED TRIANGLE COMMENT MARKS.

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE

BELLEVUE ROAD REALIGNMENT PSR-PDS

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

PSR-PDS
N/A
Widen and realign Bellevue Road between Grove Avenue and Atwater Canal and restriping between Gipson Street and Parade Street. It will deliver 1.4 miles of 4- lane arterial road in Merced County, which will include raised median, sidewalks, and a Class IV bikieway.

Roadway widening and realignment along Bellevue Road
To improve accessibility and circulation in Atwater and Merced County Alternative : Alternative # 1

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Reviewed by District O.E. or
Cost Estimate Certifier
Begin Construction

TOTAL SUPPORT COST
Estimated Project Schedule

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Approved by Project Manager
RTL
PID Approval
PA/ED Approval
PS&E
Michael Hayes, City of Atwater, Contract City Engineer
1 of 11 6/30/2023

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 3,275,000
2 $ 4,573,000
3 $ 924,300
4 $ 2,600,500
5 $ 2,180,000
6 $ 1,523,700
7 $ -
8 $ 1,206,200
9 $ 1,507,700
10 $ 247,300
11 $ -
12 $ 2,335,280
13 $ 5,093,300
$ 25,466,280
6/30/2023 (559) 374-3112
Alyssa Nishikawa, Design Engineer Date Phone
6/30/2023 (530) 848-1222
Ed Noriega, Project Manager Date Phone

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :

By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization
2 of 11 6/30/2023