Agenda packet — Atwater City Council, October 9, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
5: Vine Ave & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 1) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 370 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Future Vol, veh/h 90 370 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 102 420 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 206 0 0 420 0 0 727 830 210 620 830 104 Stage 1 - - - - - - 624 624 - 206 206 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 103 206 - 414 624 -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.16 - - 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.23 - - 2.23 - - 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1355 - - 1128 - - 310 302 793 370 302 927 Stage 1 - - - - - - 437 474 - 774 728 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 889 728 - 584 474 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 - - 1128 - - 266 272 793 342 272 926 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 266 272 - 342 272 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 394 428 - 697 727 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 824 727 - 527 428 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0 0 9.2

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1354 - - 1128 - - 926
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.076 - - - - - 0.074
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.9 0.3 - 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.2

Page 417 of 498 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
6: Vine Ave & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 1) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 10 20 50 20 10 40 60 40 30 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 10 20 50 20 10 40 60 40 30 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 45 11 23 57 23 11 45 68 45 34 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.1

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 9% 17% 22% 50%
Vol Thru, % 36% 67% 56% 38%
Vol Right, % 55% 17% 22% 12%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 60 90 80
LT Vol 10 10 20 40
Through Vol 40 40 50 30
RT Vol 60 10 20 10
Lane Flow Rate 125 68 102 91
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.144 0.085 0.126 0.114
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.136 4.478 4.418 4.499
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 869 801 813 798
Service Time 2.153 2.5 2.438 2.517
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.085 0.125 0.114
HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4

Page 418 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 7: N Winton Way & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 1) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 120 0 270 0 0 0 430 600 0 0 540 300 Future Volume (veh/h) 120 0 270 0 0 0 430 600 0 0 540 300 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 130 0 0 0 0 0 467 652 0 0 587 87
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 0 0 4 0 804 3123 0 0 1118 492
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1856 0 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1550
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0.0 0 0 0 467 652 0 0 587 87
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 0 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1550 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 4 0 804 3123 0 0 1118 492
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1735 0 2217 3297 0 0 3297 1450
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.3 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 11.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 1119 674
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 4.2 12.4
Approach LOS A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.8 24.9 18.9 0.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.0 55.0 41.0 41.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 10.6 8.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 1.5 4.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 419 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 8: N Winton Way & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 1) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 210 40 170 170 250 30 580 120 320 490 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 210 40 170 170 250 30 580 120 320 490 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 228 34 185 185 117 33 630 73 348 533 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 114 416 61 231 426 256 47 948 419 407 1539 144 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3078 452 1767 2114 1271 1767 3526 1558 1767 3257 305 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 129 133 185 153 149 33 630 73 348 288 295 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1768 1767 1763 1622 1767 1763 1558 1767 1763 1799 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 4.9 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.9 1.3 11.5 2.6 13.7 7.5 7.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 4.9 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.9 1.3 11.5 2.6 13.7 7.5 7.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 238 239 231 355 327 47 948 419 407 833 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.54 0.56 0.80 0.43 0.46 0.70 0.66 0.17 0.85 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 1339 1344 464 1339 1233 464 2679 1184 1074 1339 1367 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.3 29.2 29.3 30.6 25.3 25.4 34.9 23.6 20.3 26.7 12.0 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 1.9 2.0 6.4 0.8 1.0 16.8 0.8 0.2 5.2 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.7 2.1 2.2 3.4 2.2 2.2 0.8 4.5 0.9 5.9 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.4 31.1 31.3 36.9 26.1 26.4 51.7 24.4 20.5 31.9 12.3 12.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 349 487 736 931
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.2 30.3 25.2 19.6
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.5 14.3 5.9 38.7 8.7 19.1 20.7 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 44.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.4 7.1 3.3 9.5 5.5 7.9 15.7 13.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.5 0.0 3.6 0.1 1.9 1.0 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.4
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 420 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
9: Atwater Blvd & SR 99 On-Ramps Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 1) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 540 50 280 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 20 540 50 280 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - Free - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 22 587 54 304 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 54 0 - 0 685 54
Stage 1 - - - - 54 -
Stage 2 - - - - 631 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - 0 412 1010
Stage 1 - - - 0 966 -
Stage 2 - - - 0 528 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - - 406 1010
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 406 -
Stage 1 - - - - 952 -
Stage 2 - - - - 528 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1545 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - -

Page 421 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
1: SR 99 Southbound Ramps & Westside Blvd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 140 60 70 140 0 0 0 0 150 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 140 60 70 140 0 0 0 0 150 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Stop
Storage Length - - - 320 - - - - - - - 620
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mvmt Flow 0 159 68 80 159 0 0 0 0 170 11 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 227 0 0 512 546 159
Stage 1 - - - - - - 319 319 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 193 227 -
Critical Hdwy - - - 4.15 - - 6.45 6.55 6.25
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.45 5.55 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 5.45 5.55 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.245 - - 3.545 4.045 3.345
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1324 - 0 517 441 878
Stage 1 0 - - - - 0 730 648 -
Stage 2 0 - - - - 0 833 711 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1324 - - 486 0 878
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 486 0 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 730 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 783 0 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.6 16.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBT SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1324 - 486 878
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.06 - 0.374 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.9 - 16.8 9.2
HCM Lane LOS - - A - C A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 1.7 0

Page 422 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
2: SR 99 Northbound Ramps & Westside Blvd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 240 0 0 190 540 20 0 40 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 50 240 0 0 190 540 20 0 40 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - Stop - - None
Storage Length 350 - - - - - - - 410 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 57 273 0 0 216 614 23 0 45 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 830 0 - - - 0 910 1217 273
Stage 1 - - - - - - 387 387 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 523 830 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - - - 6.43 6.53 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - - - 3.527 4.027 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 798 - 0 0 - - 304 180 763
Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 684 608 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 593 383 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 798 - - - - - 282 0 763
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 282 0 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 635 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 593 0 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0 13

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR
Capacity (veh/h) 282 763 798 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 0.06 0.071 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.9 10 9.9 - - -
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.2 0.2 - - -

Page 423 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
3: Olive Avenue & Westside Blvd/Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 11.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 200 40 10 620 10 80 40 0 10 20 30 Future Vol, veh/h 40 200 40 10 620 10 80 40 0 10 20 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 30 - - 30
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 45 227 45 11 705 11 91 45 0 11 23 34
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 716 0 0 272 0 0 1101 1078 250 1095 1095 711 Stage 1 - - - - - - 340 340 - 733 733 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 761 738 - 362 362 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 880 - - 1286 - - 188 218 786 190 213 431 Stage 1 - - - - - - 673 637 - 411 425 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 396 423 - 655 623 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 880 - - 1286 - - 149 202 786 149 197 431 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 149 202 - 149 197 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 632 598 - 386 419 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 340 417 - 568 585 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.1 88.6 22.1

HCM LOS F C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 163 - 880 - - 1286 - - 178 431
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.837 - 0.052 - - 0.009 - - 0.192 0.079 HCM Control Delay (s) 88.6 0 9.3 0 - 7.8 0 - 30 14.1
HCM Lane LOS F A A A - A A - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.7 - 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.7 0.3

Page 424 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
4: Grove Ave & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 190 10 10 590 10 10 20 10 0 10 40 Future Vol, veh/h 10 190 10 10 590 10 10 20 10 0 10 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 20 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 216 11 11 670 11 11 23 11 0 11 45
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 681 0 0 227 0 0 607 947 222 959 947 341 Stage 1 - - - - - - 244 244 - 698 698 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 363 703 - 261 249 -
Critical Hdwy 4.145 - - 4.145 - - 7.345 6.545 6.245 7.345 6.545 6.945 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.145 5.545 - 6.545 5.545 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.545 5.545 - 6.145 5.545 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2285 - - 2.2285 - - 3.5285 4.0285 3.3285 3.5285 4.0285 3.3285 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 904 - - 1333 - - 392 259 814 222 259 653 Stage 1 - - - - - - 756 701 - 396 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 627 437 - 741 698 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 904 - - 1333 - - 345 252 814 200 252 653 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 252 - 200 252 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 745 691 - 390 433 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 561 431 - 697 688 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.1 17.2 13.2

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 277 814 904 - - 1333 - - 495
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.014 0.013 - - 0.009 - - 0.115 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.8 9.5 9 0 - 7.7 0 - 13.2
HCM Lane LOS C A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.4

Page 425 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
5: Vine Ave & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 140 0 0 490 0 0 0 0 10 0 90
Future Vol, veh/h 60 140 0 0 490 0 0 0 0 10 0 90
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 68 159 0 0 557 0 0 0 0 11 0 102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 557 0 0 159 0 0 574 852 81 774 852 279 Stage 1 - - - - - - 295 295 - 557 557 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 279 557 - 217 295 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.18 - - 7.58 6.58 6.98 7.58 6.58 6.98 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.24 - - 3.54 4.04 3.34 3.54 4.04 3.34 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 996 - - 1403 - - 397 292 956 285 292 712 Stage 1 - - - - - - 683 663 - 477 505 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 698 505 - 760 663 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 996 - - 1403 - - 320 270 955 268 270 712 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 320 270 - 268 270 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 632 613 - 441 505 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 598 505 - 702 613 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.8 0 0 12.2

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 996 - - 1403 - - 611
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.068 - - - - - 0.186
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.9 0.2 - 0 - - 12.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.7

Page 426 of 498 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
6: Vine Ave & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 20 0 40 70 70 0 20 30 90 30 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 20 0 40 70 70 0 20 30 90 30 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 23 0 45 80 80 0 23 34 102 34 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8 8.7 7.6 8.8

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 33% 22% 69%
Vol Thru, % 40% 67% 39% 23%
Vol Right, % 60% 0% 39% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 50 30 180 130
LT Vol 0 10 40 90
Through Vol 20 20 70 30
RT Vol 30 0 70 10
Lane Flow Rate 57 34 205 148
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.068 0.045 0.243 0.191
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.305 4.724 4.284 4.645
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 832 759 841 774
Service Time 2.331 2.75 2.303 2.667
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 0.045 0.244 0.191
HCM Control Delay 7.6 8 8.7 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.1 1 0.7

Page 427 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 7: N Winton Way & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 0 500 0 0 0 540 390 0 0 420 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 320 0 500 0 0 0 540 390 0 0 420 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 0 0 0 0 0 587 424 0 0 457 103
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 0 0 4 0 852 3100 0 0 976 428
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1856 0 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1547
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0.0 0 0 0 587 424 0 0 457 103
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 0 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1547 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 4 0 852 3100 0 0 976 428
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1835 0 2345 3487 0 0 3487 1530
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 12.8 11.9 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 1011 560
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 5.6 12.6
Approach LOS A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.5 25.0 16.5 0.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.0 55.0 41.0 41.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 12.7 6.5 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 2.0 3.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 428 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 8: N Winton Way & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 210 20 40 260 290 150 490 110 310 390 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 210 20 40 260 290 150 490 110 310 390 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 228 18 43 283 200 163 533 60 337 424 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 128 868 68 57 442 303 207 840 372 398 972 236 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3311 259 1767 1994 1365 1767 3526 1563 1767 2807 682 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 121 125 43 249 234 163 533 60 337 265 263 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1808 1767 1763 1597 1767 1763 1563 1767 1763 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 3.8 3.9 1.7 9.0 9.4 6.3 9.5 2.1 12.8 8.1 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 3.8 3.9 1.7 9.0 9.4 6.3 9.5 2.1 12.8 8.1 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 462 474 57 391 354 207 840 372 398 610 598 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.26 0.26 0.75 0.64 0.66 0.79 0.63 0.16 0.85 0.43 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 1382 1417 478 1382 1251 478 2763 1225 1108 1382 1354 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 20.5 20.5 33.7 24.7 24.9 30.1 24.0 21.2 26.0 17.7 17.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.3 0.3 17.8 1.7 2.1 6.5 0.8 0.2 5.1 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.7 3.5 2.9 3.7 0.7 5.5 3.0 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 20.8 20.8 51.5 26.5 27.0 36.6 24.8 21.4 31.1 18.1 18.2 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 344 526 756 865
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 28.8 27.1 23.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.3 22.9 12.2 28.8 9.1 20.1 19.8 21.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 44.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.7 5.9 8.3 10.3 5.8 11.4 14.8 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.4 0.3 3.3 0.2 3.2 1.0 3.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 429 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
9: Atwater Blvd & SR 99 On-Ramps Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions AM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 380 50 200 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 40 380 50 200 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - Free - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 43 413 54 217 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 54 0 - 0 553 54
Stage 1 - - - - 54 -
Stage 2 - - - - 499 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.44 6.24
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.44 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.44 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - - 3.536 3.336
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1539 - - 0 491 1008
Stage 1 - - - 0 963 -
Stage 2 - - - 0 606 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1539 - - - 477 1008
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 477 -
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 606 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1539 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - -

Page 430 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
1: SR 99 Southbound Ramps & Westside Blvd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 26.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 160 70 60 100 0 0 0 0 410 10 20
Future Vol, veh/h 0 160 70 60 100 0 0 0 0 410 10 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Stop
Storage Length - - - 320 - - - - - - - 620
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 182 80 68 114 0 0 0 0 466 11 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 262 0 0 472 512 114
Stage 1 - - - - - - 250 250 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 222 262 -
Critical Hdwy - - - 4.13 - - 6.43 6.53 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 1296 - 0 549 464 936
Stage 1 0 - - - - 0 789 698 -
Stage 2 0 - - - - 0 813 690 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - 1296 - - 520 0 936
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 520 0 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 789 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 771 0 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3 48.1

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT EBR WBL WBT SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1296 - 520 936
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.053 - 0.918 0.024
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.9 - 50 8.9
HCM Lane LOS - - A - F A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - 11 0.1

Page 431 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
2: SR 99 Northbound Ramps & Westside Blvd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 540 0 0 140 200 20 10 60 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 30 540 0 0 140 200 20 10 60 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - Stop - - None
Storage Length 350 - - - - - - - 410 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 34 614 0 0 159 227 23 11 68 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 386 0 - - - 0 955 1068 614
Stage 1 - - - - - - 682 682 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 273 386 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - - - 6.43 6.53 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 5.43 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - - - 3.527 4.027 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1167 - 0 0 - - 285 221 490
Stage 1 - - 0 0 - - 500 448 -
Stage 2 - - 0 0 - - 771 608 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1167 - - - - - 277 0 490
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 277 0 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 486 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 771 0 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 15.6

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT WBT WBR
Capacity (veh/h) 277 490 1167 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.139 0.029 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.8 13.5 8.2 - - -
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.5 0.1 - - -

Page 432 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
3: Olive Avenue & Westside Blvd/Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 480 80 0 240 10 60 30 10 10 40 40 Future Vol, veh/h 40 480 80 0 240 10 60 30 10 10 40 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 30 - - 30
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 45 545 91 0 273 11 68 34 11 11 45 45
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 284 0 0 636 0 0 1005 965 591 982 1005 279 Stage 1 - - - - - - 681 681 - 279 279 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 324 284 - 703 726 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1273 - - 943 - - 219 254 505 227 240 757 Stage 1 - - - - - - 439 449 - 725 678 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 686 675 - 427 428 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1273 - - 943 - - 167 240 505 190 227 757 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 167 240 - 190 227 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 414 424 - 684 678 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 602 675 - 362 404 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 42.4 19.6

HCM LOS E C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 186 505 1273 - - 943 - - 218 757
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.55 0.023 0.036 - - - - - 0.261 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 45.7 12.3 7.9 0 - 0 - - 27.2 10.1 HCM Lane LOS E B A A - A - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.9 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 1 0.2

Page 433 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
4: Grove Ave & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 460 0 10 230 0 0 10 10 0 10 20
Future Vol, veh/h 40 460 0 10 230 0 0 10 10 0 10 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 20 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 45 523 0 11 261 0 0 11 11 0 11 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 261 0 0 523 0 0 771 896 523 907 896 131 Stage 1 - - - - - - 613 613 - 283 283 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 158 283 - 624 613 -
Critical Hdwy 4.145 - - 4.145 - - 7.345 6.545 6.245 7.345 6.545 6.945 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.145 5.545 - 6.545 5.545 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.545 5.545 - 6.145 5.545 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2285 - - 2.2285 - - 3.5285 4.0285 3.3285 3.5285 4.0285 3.3285 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1295 - - 1036 - - 302 278 551 242 278 892 Stage 1 - - - - - - 477 480 - 698 674 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 826 674 - 470 480 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1295 - - 1036 - - 271 261 551 219 261 892 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 271 261 - 219 261 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 454 456 - 664 666 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 782 666 - 427 456 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.4 15.6 12.8

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 261 551 1295 - - 1036 - - 494
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.021 0.035 - - 0.011 - - 0.069 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.4 11.7 7.9 0 - 8.5 0 - 12.8
HCM Lane LOS C B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2

Page 434 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
5: Vine Ave & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 370 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Future Vol, veh/h 90 370 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 102 420 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 206 0 0 420 0 0 727 830 210 620 830 104 Stage 1 - - - - - - 624 624 - 206 206 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 103 206 - 414 624 -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.16 - - 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.23 - - 2.23 - - 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1355 - - 1128 - - 310 302 793 370 302 927 Stage 1 - - - - - - 437 474 - 774 728 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 889 728 - 584 474 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 - - 1128 - - 266 272 793 342 272 926 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 266 272 - 342 272 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 394 428 - 697 727 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 824 727 - 527 428 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0 0 9.2

Page 435 of 498 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
6: Vine Ave & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 10 20 50 20 10 40 60 40 30 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 10 20 50 20 10 40 60 40 30 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 45 11 23 57 23 11 45 68 45 34 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.1

Page 436 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 7: N Winton Way & Fruitland Ave Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 120 0 270 0 0 0 430 600 0 0 540 300 Future Volume (veh/h) 120 0 270 0 0 0 430 600 0 0 540 300 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 130 0 0 0 0 0 467 652 0 0 587 87
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 0 0 4 0 804 3123 0 0 1118 492
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1856 0 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1550
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0.0 0 0 0 467 652 0 0 587 87
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 0 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1550 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 4 0 804 3123 0 0 1118 492
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1735 0 2217 3297 0 0 3297 1450
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.3 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 11.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 1119 674
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 4.2 12.4
Approach LOS A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.8 24.9 18.9 0.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.0 55.0 41.0 41.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 10.6 8.0 0.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 1.5 4.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 437 of 498 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Bellevue Rd Realignment Project 8: N Winton Way & Bellevue Rd Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 210 40 170 170 250 30 580 120 320 490 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 210 40 170 170 250 30 580 120 320 490 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 228 34 185 185 117 33 630 73 348 533 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 114 416 61 231 426 256 47 948 419 407 1539 144 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3078 452 1767 2114 1271 1767 3526 1558 1767 3257 305 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 129 133 185 153 149 33 630 73 348 288 295 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1768 1767 1763 1622 1767 1763 1558 1767 1763 1799 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 4.9 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.9 1.3 11.5 2.6 13.7 7.5 7.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 4.9 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.9 1.3 11.5 2.6 13.7 7.5 7.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 238 239 231 355 327 47 948 419 407 833 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.54 0.56 0.80 0.43 0.46 0.70 0.66 0.17 0.85 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 1339 1344 464 1339 1233 464 2679 1184 1074 1339 1367 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.3 29.2 29.3 30.6 25.3 25.4 34.9 23.6 20.3 26.7 12.0 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 1.9 2.0 6.4 0.8 1.0 16.8 0.8 0.2 5.2 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.7 2.1 2.2 3.4 2.2 2.2 0.8 4.5 0.9 5.9 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.4 31.1 31.3 36.9 26.1 26.4 51.7 24.4 20.5 31.9 12.3 12.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 349 487 736 931
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.2 30.3 25.2 19.6
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.5 14.3 5.9 38.7 8.7 19.1 20.7 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 19.0 55.0 44.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.4 7.1 3.3 9.5 5.5 7.9 15.7 13.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.5 0.0 3.6 0.1 1.9 1.0 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.4
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 438 of 498 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Bellevue Rd Realignment Project
9: Atwater Blvd & SR 99 On-Ramps Design Year Plus Project (Alternative 2) Conditions PM Fehr & Peers Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 540 50 280 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 20 540 50 280 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - Free - None
Storage Length 150 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 22 587 54 304 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 54 0 - 0 685 54
Stage 1 - - - - 54 -
Stage 2 - - - - 631 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - 0 412 1010
Stage 1 - - - 0 966 -
Stage 2 - - - 0 528 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1545 - - - 406 1010
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 406 -
Stage 1 - - - - 952 -
Stage 2 - - - - 528 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1545 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - -

Page 439 of 498 ends

ATTACHMENT J.

MINI PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL

ANALYSIS REPORT (MINI-PEAR)

Page 440 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 1
Mini-Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report
Project Information
DIST-CO-RTE:10-Merced-Bellevue Road PM/PM: N/A
EA: N/A EFIS Project ID: N/A
Project Title: Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project Project Manager: Ed Noriega Phone: (530) 848-1222
Project Engineer: Alyssa Nishikawa Phone: (559) 374-3112 Environmental Office Chief/Manager: N/A Phone: N/A
PEAR Preparer: Savannah Marburger and Riley Vera Phone: (310) 792-2690 Project Description
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to improve accessibility and mobility of goods and persons in the City of Atwater (city/Atwater), provide a direct route from the State Route 99 (SR99)/Westside Boulevard interchange to the Castle Commerce Center in Atwater, provide congestion relief at nearby interchanges and improved traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities, accommodate local development, and provide consistency with existing and planned local and regional development.

The project is needed to improve traffic operations for all modes of travel, increase connectivity between SR-99 and the Castle Commerce Center, and enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The existing Bellevue Road operates as a private road between Gipson Street and Vine Avenue. This requires an additional 2.5 miles of travel from the Castle Commerce Center to the SR-99 Westside Boulevard interchange, which contributes to additional VMT and travel time and reduces accessibility and mobility of goods and persons to the heart of Atwater. Additionally, Bellevue Road currently does not provide adequate access or safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Description of Project
The City of Atwater (City), in cooperation with the County of Merced (County), proposes to realign and/or reconstruct Bellevue Road (project) in Merced County, west of Atwater (see Attachment A, Figures). The project would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road to the west and end at the intersection of Parade Street and Bellevue Road to the east (see Attachment A). The project would provide a direct route between SR-99 and the Castle Commerce Center and would reduce VMT.

The City and County have received funding through Merced County’s Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Projects Funds to complete a Project Study ReportProject Development Support (PSR-PDS) to determine the costs, schedules, right-of-way (ROW) needs, and additional documentation needed to request funding to complete the

Page 441 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 2
design and construction of the project. It is anticipated that future phases would be funded by Merced County Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Project Funds and potentially federal funding sources. It is assumed there is no other federal nexus; therefore, if future phases of the project are not funded through federal funding sources, only environmental documentation related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required, and environmental documentation related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would not be required.

The project alignment spans across City and County ROW; however, the acreage and location of ROW acquisition or temporary construction easements (TCE) are not known at this time. Three alternatives are presented in this report. Alternatives 1 and Alternative 2 are Build Alternatives and Alternative 3 is the No Build Alternative. Below is a list of the proposed improvements for each of the Alternatives. All improvements would be designed to meet City standards, consistent with the County’s General Plan Policy CIR-1.16.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would include constructing an approximately 1.6-mile 4-lane arterial road with Class IV bicycle lanes. The proposed road would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road. From this intersection, Bellevue Road would be realigned south of the existing Bellevue Road, then conform near the intersection of Parade Street and Bellevue Road. Bellevue Road would also be repaired and restriped between the Atwater Canal and Parade Street. New intersection connections would be required at Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. A maximum excavation depth of five to 10 feet would be required.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would include acquiring permanent ROW from the Dole Packaged Foods campus and widening the existing Bellevue Road alignment to a 4-lane road with Class IV bicycle lanes. The proposed widening would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road and end at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Parade Street and Bellevue Road. A maximum excavation depth of five to 10 feet would be required.

Transmission lines along the existing Bellevue Road would likely be relocated; however, the decision to underground or relocate transmission lines would be determined as project design advances.

Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would include no improvements to Bellevue Road, leaving the roadway in its current condition. Under this alternative, the roadway would continue to impact VMT and reduce the accessibility and mobility of goods and persons in and around Atwater.

Page 442 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 3
Anticipated Environmental Approval
CEQA (choose one):

Exemption
Statutory Categorical Common Sense
Initial Study or Focused Initial Study with proposed Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated ND
Environmental Impact Report1
(For Federal Nexus Only) NEPA (choose one):

Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact Routine Complex
Environmental Impact Statement1
See Attachment B, PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist and Attachment C, Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate (MCCE) for additional information on anticipated technical studies and mitigation requirements.

Summary Statement
In order to identify environmental issues, constraints, costs, and resource needs, a MiniPreliminary Environmental Assessment Report (Mini-PEAR) was prepared for the project.

Potential disposal, staging, and borrow sites will need to be identified in the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase for a complete environmental review. Field studies were not conducted, and technical studies have been deferred to the PA&ED phase.

It is anticipated that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation under CEQA. The City would be the CEQA Lead Agency and the County would be the Responsible Agency for project encroachments into and effects on the County roadways. If during preparation of technical studies completed for the project, potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance are identified, then preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. If NEPA is required, it is anticipated that a Routine Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation under NEPA, and Caltrans would be the NEPA Lead Agency.

Based on the current workload and available resources, approximately 18 to 24 months would be required to complete the environmental review process for CEQA; however, carrying two build alternatives through the NEPA process, if required, may result in schedule delays. Supporting technical memorandums or technical studies are required to 1 If the anticipated environmental document is an EIR and/or EIS, the preparation of a standard PEAR is recommended to avoid unanticipated costs and project delays.

Page 443 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 4
support the Environmental Document. Changes in project scope, alternatives, existing environmental conditions, and/or environmental laws or regulations would require reevaluation of the Mini-PEAR.

Special Considerations
Air Quality
The project area is in the San Joaquin Air Basin and regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (California Air Resources Board, 2017). The SJVAPCD is a maintenance area for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). The project is included in the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

During construction, the use of construction equipment and vehicle trips by construction workers would result in short-term increases in criteria air pollutants due to mobile source emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. Operation of the project is anticipated to reduce VMT by providing a direct route between the east and west side of Atwater, which would result in a reduction of pollutant emissions. However, according to the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA) prepared, an increase in traffic along Bellevue Road would be expected to reduce the level of service (LOS) at study intersections. This would increase vehicle idling times and would lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, an Air Quality Report, including a calculation of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the project, is recommended to analyze potential project impacts, and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.

Biology
A windshield survey of the project area was conducted on March 2, 2023. There is no access to Bellevue Avenue between Gipson Street and Vine Avenue by the Dole packaging facility; therefore, a windshield survey of the entire project area could not be conducted. A desktop survey was also conducted via Google Earth. Based on the windshield survey and desktop review, vegetation within the project area consists mostly of orchards and open fields. In addition, based on the windshield survey, aerial imagery, and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper, Atwater Canal crosses under Bellevue Road just west of Parade Street (see Attachment A). In addition, pond features are located directly north and south of Bellevue Road. Atwater Canal is not anticipated to fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or CDFW; however, coordination with the Merced Irrigation District (MID) would be conducted to confirm jurisdiction.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare Plants, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information and Planning and

Page 444 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 5
Consultation (IPaC) system were queried for the project (see Attachment D, Species Lists). A total of 90 special-status species have been recorded within the search area and the following six federally or state listed threatened or endangered species that have been recorded within five miles of the project area: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and succulent owl’s-clover (Castilleja campestris var. succulenta) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). In addition, two Species of Special Concern (SSC) have been previously recorded within five miles of the project area, including the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). There is no designated critical habitat for federally endangered or threatened species within the project area (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023). A Natural Environmental Study (NES) is recommended to identify potential impacts on biological resources and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.

According to the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Habitat Connectivity Viewer, there are no essential wildlife connectivity areas or natural landscape blocks in the BSA (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023). In addition, the project area is not likely used as a regional wildlife movement corridor because the project area and vicinity are developed with agricultural, commercial, and residential uses. However, the project area may be used by local wildlife for movement and foraging. The project area is not within an approved Habitat Conservation Plan, natural community conservation plan, USFWS vernal pool recovery plan, or a grasslands ecological area. The project area is primarily within the County of Merced; however, the County of Merced’s General Plan (County’s General Plan) has identified the portion of the project area within its jurisdiction as being within the City’s Planning Area; therefore, the project would need to be designed in compliance with Section 4 Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Atwater General Plan (City’s General Plan).

If the project would result in impacts on federally endangered/threatened species or their habitat, Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would be required under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) if NEPA is required for the project. Therefore, a Biological Assessment is recommended to support Informal Section 7 Consultation to identify potential impacts and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts. If NEPA is not required for the project, consultation would be conducted under Section 10 of the FESA; however, take of federally listed species and a Habitat Conservation Plan are not anticipated. If the project would result in take of any state endangered/threated species, consultation with the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act and an Incidental Take Permit would be required; however, take of state listed species is not anticipated.

The project would include striping on the bridge over Atwater Canal and would not require work in Atwater Canal; therefore, an Aquatic Resources Delineation report is not recommended. The project is not anticipated to result in impacts on waters under jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW; therefore, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit Verification from the USACE, CWA Section 401 Water

Page 445 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 6
Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW would not be required.

Community Impacts
The County of Merced’s General Plan has identified the area as being inside the City’s Planning Area (County of Merced, 2021). According to the City’s General Plan, designated land uses within the project area include Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Path/Park, Commercial, and Business Park (see Attachment A) (City of Atwater, 2010). The portion of the project area south of the existing Bellevue Road is also designated as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation (see Attachment A) (California Department of Conservation, 2016). The project would be designed to increase connectivity through Atwater and is not anticipated to divide the community.

Implementation of the project would require permanent ROW acquisitions from parcels adjacent to the existing Bellevue Road. Changes in land use could conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations; however, improving Bellevue Road within the project area to a 4-lane arterial road is included in the City’s General Plan and impacts related to land use change have been accounted for (City of Atwater, 2000). The project could potentially induce growth in communities surrounding the project area by increasing connectivity from SR-99 to downtown Atwater and the Castle Commerce Center. However, this is included in the General Plan and any development would be planned growth by the City and any future development would be subject to applicable environmental and planning processes. Project operation could also result in potential impacts on surrounding communities related to noise and community character. If NEPA documentation is required, a Community Impact Assessment is recommended for the project to analyze potential project impacts, and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts. Additionally, a Form NRCS-CPA-106 would be required for NEPA to assess impacts on local farmland and initiate coordination with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Cultural Resources
A Cultural Technical Memorandum and Built-Environment Resources Technical Memorandum were prepared for the project, which included a records search from the Central California Information Center (CCAIC) located at California State University, Stanislaus on December 20, 2022 (GPA Consulting, 2022). According to the report, two previously recorded built-environment resources were identified within the project area:
the MID (P-24-001909) and the Atwater Canal (P-24-000092), which is a feature of the larger MID. Since features of the MID are within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), an evaluation would be required to determine National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. If Caltrans is the federal Lead Agency, eligibility may be assumed for the purposes of the undertaking only as allowed by the Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA). Additionally, there are approximately eight parcels with structures that appear to be at least 45 years of age. Depending on the project design, these eight parcels with potential historic properties could require evaluation for NRHP eligibility, or if

Page 446 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 7
Caltrans is the federal Lead Agency, may be exempt from evaluation as allowed by the Caltrans Section 106 PA.

The project area has a high sensitivity for archaeological resources and very little of the project area has been investigated previously for cultural resources. Therefore, an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), and Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER) are recommended for the project to analyze potential impacts on cultural resources. If any historic properties are identified in the APE, and NEPA is required, a Finding of Effect (FOE) would be required. If a Finding of Adverse Effect is made, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) would be necessary to stipulate the necessary mitigations to resolve the adverse effect; however, this is not anticipated. If NRHP-eligible properties are identified in the APE, and NEPA is required, a Section 4(f) evaluation would also be required. A Temporary Occupancy or de Minimis determination would be anticipated for any impact on Section 4(f) resource.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), there are no known hazardous waste sites within the project area (see Attachment A) (State Water Resource Control Board, 2023; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023). Construction could require the transportation, use, and removal of materials and waste that could be hazardous, including aerially deposited lead (ADL) and yellow (thermoplastic or paint) traffic striping. ADL has potential to be in the project area because the roadway has been in use since the period when lead was an ingredient in gasoline. If ADL is present, disturbance of the contaminated soil could result in a release of the lead into the environment. In addition, thermoplastic striping has historically contained lead and chromium at hazardous concentrations. If lead and chromium are present, the removal of yellow (thermoplastic or paint) traffic striping could release these chemicals into the environment. Therefore, a Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) is recommended for the project to analyze potential project impacts and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 06047C0400G and 06047C0405G (effective December 2, 2008), the project area is within Zone X (see Attachment A). Zone X is described as being outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage area less than one square mile (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008). Therefore, a Location Hydraulic Study is not recommended for the project.

The nearest bodies of water are pond features located directly north and south of Bellevue Road and the Atwater Canal, which crosses under Bellevue Road just west of Parade Street (National Wetlands Inventory, n.d.).

Page 447 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 8
During construction, exposed soils, construction debris, and other pollutants could enter storm water runoff that discharges into the drainage and ponds. The project would include roadway widening and/or realignment, which would increase impervious surface areas or result in changes in topography in the project area. However, these changes are not expected to substantially affect existing drainage patterns and runoff velocity in the project area.

Paleontology
According to the California Department of Conservation (CDOC), the sediments that underlie Atwater are marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks from the PleistoceneHolocene age, formed from 2,580,000 years ago up to present day (California Department of Conservation, 2010). Because of the age of these sediments, paleontological resources could be encountered during ground disturbing activities.

Therefore, a Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) is recommended to document the presence or non-presence of paleontological resources in the project area, analyze potential project impacts, and would include a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) to identify appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts.

Noise
The nearest sensitive noise receptors are several single-family residential properties located less than 100 feet south and north of the project area along Bellevue Road. The predominant source of existing noise in the project area is the vehicle traffic along Bellevue Road and other adjacent roadways. Additionally, there is Dole Foods Packaging Plant located at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Vine Avenue.

Noise and ground-borne vibration impacts associated with the project are anticipated to be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. The project would be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal noise regulations, including Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02 Noise Control, which requires noise from construction work activities to remain under 86 decibels (dBA) at 50 feet from the construction site from 9:00 pm to 6:00 pm (California Department of Transportation, 2018).

Construction-related noise activities would be short-term; however, it is currently unknown how long project construction would last and what type of construction equipment would be needed to complete the proposed project. Operational impacts may include increased noise and ground-borne vibration for sensitive noise receptors due to traffic being closer to the receptors, as well as increased traffic levels along Bellevue Road within the project area. Therefore, a Noise Study Report (NSR) is recommended to analyze potential project impacts and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts.

Visual/Aesthetics
There are no officially designated scenic highways in or surrounding the project area. The

Page 448 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 9
nearest officially designated scenic highway is Interstate 5 (I-5) approximately 26 miles west of the project area (California Department of Transportation, 2018). The project area is primarily within the County of Merced; however, the County of Merced’s General Plan (County’s General Plan) has identified the portion of the project area within its jurisdiction as being within the City’s Planning Area. According to the City’s General Plan, Bellevue Road is designated as a scenic corridor (City of Atwater, 2000; County of Merced, 2013).

Alternative 1 would include realigning and widening the roadway and Alternative 2 would include widening the existing roadway. The Caltrans Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level was completed to identify the appropriate level of reporting. The project received a score of 14 out of a possible 30 points, which indicates that the project would not result in noticeable visual changes to the environment (see Attachment E, VIA Questionnaire). Therefore, if NEPA is required, a brief memorandum is recommended to describe the visual changes for the project; however, a technical study is not recommended.

Geology and Soils
According to the California Department of Conservation, the project area is located in a relatively flat region and is not susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. Additionally, the nearest fault zone is Ortigalita Fault Zone located approximately 34 miles west of the project area (California Department of Conservation, 2021). According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, the soils beneath the project area includes Atwater Sand, 0 to 3 Percent Slopes, and Atwater Sand, 3 to 8 Percent Slopes (United States Department of Agriculture, 2023). According to the City’s General Plan, Atwater Sand, 0 to 3 Percent Slopes, has good natural drainage and little or no hazard of water erosion, but there is a severe hazard of wind erosion (City of Atwater, 2000). Therefore, the project would require a geotechnical investigation during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) phase of the project to identify the most effective design and materials in reducing potential long-term impacts.

Transportation/Traffic
Bellevue Road is designated as a Urban Major Arterial and consists of a 2-lane roadway with no shoulder on the north side of the roadway and a dirt shoulder on the south side of the roadway. The project would include constructing an approximately 1.6-mile long, 4-lane Arterial Road and Class IV bike lanes along Bellevue Avenue from Grove Avenue to Parade Street. Widening Bellevue Road within the project area to a 4-lane arterial road is included in the City’s General Plan (City of Atwater, 2000).

Improvements would be expected to increase operational traffic levels along Bellevue Road because it would provide a direct route from SR-99 Westside Boulevard interchange and the Castle Commerce Center; however, this would be due to a change in traffic patterns and not an increase in VMT. According to the TEPA, the increase in traffic along Bellevue Road would reduce the LOS at study intersections. It is not yet known if the proposed project would require temporary lane closures during the construction period. Therefore, a Traffic Operations Analysis Report is recommended for

Page 449 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 10
the project to analyze potential traffic impacts associated with construction and operation of the project and develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts.

Cumulative Impacts
A list of projects for the cumulative impact analysis would be prepared during the completion of the environmental document. This list would include major development projects and transportation projects that have been or would be completed within the project vicinity in the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future. Potential transportation projects may include other local projects identified within the City’s General Plan, and the MCAG 2018 RTP/SCS. The cumulative impact analysis completed for the project would include evaluation of those resources that would be substantially impacted by the project or those resources currently in poor or declining health or at risk even if project impacts are relatively small or less than significant. These resources may include Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Farmland, Water Quality, and regional traffic circulation and VMT and would be discussed further in the IS/EA.

Disclaimer
This report is not an environmental document or determination. The above information and recommendations are based on the project description provided in this report. The discussion and conclusions provided by this Mini-PEAR are approximate and based on a cursory review of existing records, databases, and mapping tools to estimate the potential for probable environmental effects. The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary level of environmental analysis to support the Project Initiation Document. Changes in project scope, alternatives, existing environmental conditions, and/or environmental laws or regulations will require a re-evaluation of this report.

Approval
Environmental Branch Chief Date
Project Manager Date
Headquarters Coordinator’s Class of Action Concurrence has been obtained (email concurrence is attached)—required for environmental documents only and not CEs.

Page 450 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 11
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Figures
Attachment B: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist
Attachment C: Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate (MCCE) Attachment D: Species Lists
Attachment E: VIA Questionnaire

Page 451 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 12
References
California Air Resources Board. (2017). Emissions by Air Basin. Retrieved from California AIr Resources Board: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/emissionsair-basin California Department of Conservation. (2010). Geologic Map of California. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/
California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder.

Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Conservation. (2021). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2023, January 4). Biogreographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved January 4, 2022b, from California Department of Fish and Wildlife: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2023, January 4). California Department of Fish and Wildlife Rarefind. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from California Department of Fish and Wildlife : https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-andData California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). EnviroStor. Retrieved from Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Transportation. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
California Department of Transportation. (2018). Standards Specifications. Retrieved from California Depatment of Transportation: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/f00203402018stdspecsa11y.pdf City of Atwater. (2000). General Plan .

City of Atwater. (2010, September 9). Atwater City General Plan Land Use Map.

County of Merced. (2013). 2030 Merced County General Plan .

County of Merced. (2021, May). Merced County General Plan Designation Map.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2008). FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

Retrieved 2023, from

Page 452 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 13
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=skyway%20dr%20and%20ne al%20rd%2C%20paradise%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor
GPA Consulting. (2022). Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum.

National Wetlands Inventory. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper State Water Resource Control Board. (2023, February). Geotracker. Retrieved from State Water Resource Control Board:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=atwate r
United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2022, December 31). California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Retrieved from Green Book:
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2023, January 4). IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from United States Fish and Wildlife Service: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/

Page 453 of 498 ends

Attachment A
Figures

Page 454 of 498 ends

Page 455 of 498 ends

Page 456 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, IGN, and the GIS User Community

OLIVE AVE

VINE AVE

GROVE AVE

BELLEVUE RD

ATWATER BLVD

LONGVIEW AVE

ORCHARD PARK AVE

BERT CRANE RD

FRUITLAND AVE

HERMAN ST

GROVE AVE
FIGURE 3. PROJECT FOOTPRINT
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
Project Location
0 0.25
Miles Z
·|}þ99
Source: ESRI 2023

Page 457 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, IGN, and the GIS User Community

OLIVE AVE

BELLEVUE RD

GROVE AVE

WESTSIDE BLVD

ORCHARD PARK AVE

BELLEVUE RD
G
R
O
VE A
VE
FIGURE 4. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
·|}þ99
Source: ESRI 2023

OLIVE AVE

BELLEVUE RD

GROVE AVE

WESTSIDE BLVD

ORCHARD PARK AVE
G
R
O
VE A
VE
0 200 400 600
Feet Z
Legend
Project Footprint
Alternative 1
Legend
Project Footprint
Alternative 2
0 200 400 600
Feet Z

Page 458 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 5. NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5
Miles Z
Sources: US Fish & Wildlife Service 2022; ESRI 2023
Legend
Project Footprint
Wetlands by Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine

Page 459 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 6. LAND USE
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
0 0.25
Miles Z
·|}þ99
Source: California Department of Water Resources 2012; ESRI 2023 Legend
Project Footprint
Agricultural
Urban - Unspecified
Parks & Open Space
Water
Commercial
Indistrial
Residential

Page 460 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 7. IMPORTANT FARMLAND
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
0 0.25
Miles Z
Source: California Department of Conservation 2018; ESRI 2023 Legend
Project Footprint
Farmland Designations
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Local Importance
Unique Farmland
Rural Residential Land
Grazing Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Urban and Built-up Land

Page 461 of 498 ends

FIGURE 8. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
Source: ESRI 2019.

Sources: CA State Water Resources Control Board 2023.

Project Location

Page 462 of 498 ends

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 06047C0400G 06047C0405G
06047C0200G 06047C0225G
FIGURE 9. FEMA FLOOD ZONES
Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project
0 0.25
Miles Z
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency 2008; ESRI 2023 Legend
Project Footprint
Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels
Flood Hazard Zones

X, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD

Page 463 of 498 ends

Attachment B
PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist

Page 464 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 1 of 3
Attachment B: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
Land Use ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Wild and Scenic River Consistency ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated Coastal Management Plan ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Growth ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Farmlands/Timberlands ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Form NRCS-CPA-106
(NEPA Only)
Community Impacts ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Community Character and Cohesion ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Relocations ☒ ☐ ☐ M
Discussed in the
Environmental
Document
Environmental Justice ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Utilities/Emergency Services ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Community Impact
Assessment (NEPA
Only)
Traffic/Transportation ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Traffic Operations
Analysis Report
SB743/Induced Travel ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Visual/Aesthetics ☐ ☒ ☐ L
Brief Visual Impact
Memorandum (NEPA
Only)
Cultural Resources: ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Archaeological Survey Report ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Archaeological Survey
Report
Historic Resources Evaluation Report ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Historic Resources
Evaluation Report
Historic Property Survey Report ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Historic Property
Survey Report
Historic Resource Compliance Report ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated Section 106 / PRC 5024 & 5024.5 ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Section 106 would be
needed for any
potential impacts on
historic and cultural
resources (NEPA Only)
Native American Coordination ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Native American
Consultation Outreach
Letters

Page 465 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 2 of 3
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
Finding of Effect ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Finding of Effect or
Finding of No Adverse
Effect would be needed
for any properties
determined to be
historic (NEPA Only)
Data Recovery Plan ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Memorandum of Agreement ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Other: Enter other study ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Hydrology and Floodplain ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not Anticipated
Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated Geology, Soils, Seismic and
Topography ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Geotechnical
Investigation
Paleontology ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Paleontological
Identification
Report/Paleontological
Evaluation Report
PER ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Paleontological
Identification
Report/Paleontological
Evaluation Report
PMP ☐ ☐ ☒ L
PMP would be included
in the PIR/PER, if
required
Hazardous Waste/Materials: ☐ ☐ ☒ M Initial Site Assessment ISA (Additional) ☐ ☐ ☒ M Initial Site Assessment
PSI ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Other: Enter other study ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Air Quality ☐ ☐ ☒ M Air Quality Report
Noise and Vibration ☐ ☐ ☒ M Noise Study Report
Energy ☒ ☐ ☐ L
Discussed in the
Environmental
Document
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated Biological Environment ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Natural Environmental
Study
Fish Passage ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Wildlife Connectivity ☒ ☐ ☐ L
Natural Environmental
Study
Natural Environment Study ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Natural Environmental
Study
Biological Assessment Section 7: ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Formal ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Informal ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Biological Assessment
to support Informal
Section 7 Consultation
(NEPA Only)
No effect ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
☒

Page 466 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 3 of 3
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
Section 10 ☒ ☐ ☐ L
If federal funding is not
used for the project,
consultation under
Section 10 may be
required
USFWS Consultation ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Biological Assessment
to support Informal
Section 7 Consultation
(NEPA Only)
NMFS Consultation ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS,
BLM, S, F) ☐ ☐ ☒ M
Natural Environmental
Study
Wetlands & Other Waters/Delineation ☒ ☐ ☐ M Not anticipated 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated Invasive Species ☒ ☐ ☐ L
Discussed in the
Environmental
Document
HMMP ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
CDFW Consistency Determination ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
2081 ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Other: Enter other study ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Cumulative Impacts ☒ ☐ ☐ L
Discussed in the
Environmental
Document
Context Sensitive Solutions ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Section 4(f) Evaluation ☐ ☐ ☒ L
Temporary Occupancy
or de Minimis
determination (NEPA
Only)
Permits: ☐ ☐ ☐ M Permits anticipated
401 Certification Coordination ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
404 Permit Coordination, IP, NWP, or
LOP ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
1602 Agreement Coordination ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
Local Coastal Development Permit
Coordination ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
State Coastal Development Permit
Coordination ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
NPDES Coordination ☐ ☐ ☒ M Notice of Intent
TRPA ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated
BCDC ☒ ☐ ☐ L Not anticipated

Page 467 of 498 ends

Attachment C
Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate (MCCE)

Page 468 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 1 of 3
Attachment C: Mitigation and Compliance Cost Estimate (MCCE) PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION
DIST-CO-RTE: Bellevue Road PM/PM: N/A
EA/Project Number: N/A
Project Description: The City of Atwater (City), in cooperation with the County of Merced (County), proposes to realign and/or reconstruct Bellevue Road (project) in Merced County, west of Atwater. The project area would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road to the west and end at the intersection of Parade Street and Bellevue Road to the east. The project would be designed to provide a direct route and increase connectivity between SR-99 and the Castle Commerce Center located in Atwater and would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The City and County have received funding through Merced County’s Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Projects Funds to complete a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) to determine the costs, schedules, right-of-way (ROW) needs, and additional documentation needed to request funding to complete the design and construction of the project. It is anticipated that future phases would be funded by Merced County Measure V Transportation Sales Tax Regional Project Funds and potentially federal funding sources. All improvements would be designed to meet City standards, consistent with the County’s General Plan Policy CIR-1.16. The acreage and location of ROW acquisition or temporary construction easements (TCE) are not known at this time.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would include realigning Bellevue Road by constructing an approximately 1.6-mile 4-lane arterial road with Class IV bicycle lanes. The proposed road would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road. From this intersection, Bellevue Road would be realigned south of the existing Bellevue Road, then conform near the intersection of Parade Street and Bellevue Road intersection. The project would also include Class IV bicycle lanes along the roadway. Bellevue Road would also be repaired and restriped between the Atwater Canal and Parade Street. New intersection connections would be required at Vine Avenue and Orchard Park Avenue. A maximum excavation depth of five to 10 feet would be required.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would include acquiring permanent ROW from the Dole Packaged Foods campus and widening the existing Bellevue Road alignment to a 4-lane road with Class IV bicycle lanes.

The project proposed widening would begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road to the west and end at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Parade Street and Bellevue Road to the east. A maximum excavation depth of five to 10 feet would be required.

Transmission lines along the existing Bellevue Road would likely be relocated; however, the decision to underground or relocate transmission lines would be determined as project design advances.

Page 469 of 498 ends

Revised June 2020 Page 2 of 3
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would include no improvements to Bellevue Road, leaving the roadway in its current the existing conditions. Under this alternative, the roadway would continue to impact VMT and reduce the accessibility and mobility of goods and persons in and around Atwater.

Form completed by (Name/District Office): N/A
Project Manager: Ed Noriega Phone Number: (530) 848-1222 Date: September 18, 2023
PART 2 - PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS
Alternatives 1 and 2
Permit/Agreement Cost
☐ Fish and Game 1602 Agreement
☐ Coastal Development Permit
☐ State Lands Agreement
☐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
☐ Section 404 Permit – Nationwide (U.S. Army Corps)
☐ Section 404 Permit – Individual (U.S. Army Corps)
☐ Section 10 Navigable Waters Permit (U.S. Army Corps)
☐ Section 9 Permit (U.S. Coast Guard)
☐ Other:

Total (enter zeros if no cost) $0
PART 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS FOR PERMANENT IMPACTS Environmental Commitments for Alternatives 1 and 2 (Estimated Costs are shown in $1,000s)
Commitment Design ROW Construction Post
Construction
Sub-Total Notes
Noise
abatement or
mitigation
0 0 0 0 0 Not Anticipated
Special
landscaping
0 0 0 0 0 Not Anticipated
Archaeological
resources
0 0 20-30 10-20 30-50 Construction
monitoring;
recovery and
treatment of
archaeological
resources
Biological
resources
0 0 20-40 15-20 35-60 Pre-construction
surveys;
biological
monitoring; postPage 470 of 498
Revised June 2020 Page 3 of 3
Commitment Design ROW Construction Post
Construction
Sub-Total Notes
construction
surveys and
reporting
Historical
resources
0 0 00 0 0 Not Anticipated
Scenic
resources
0 0 0 5 0 Construction
monitoring
Wetland/
riparian
resources
0 50-
100
0 0 0 Not anticipated
Res./bus.
relocations
0 0 0 0 0 Not anticipated.

Other: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Not anticipated.

Total (enter
zeros if no
cost)
0 50-
100
40-70 25-40 65-110

Page 471 of 498 ends

Attachment D
Species Lists

Page 472 of 498 ends

January 04, 2023
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2023-0030298
Project Name: Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)

Page 473 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 2
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-tobirds.php.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Page 474 of 498 ends

01/04/2023
3 ▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

Page 475 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600

Page 476 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2023-0030298
Project Name: Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project Project Type: Road/Hwy - Maintenance/Modification
Project Description: The City proposes to construct an approximately 1.6-mile-long, 4-lane arterial road in Merced County. The proposed road will begin at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Bellevue Road. From this intersection, 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 II bike lanes.

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@37.3593874,-120.63581346744098,14z Counties: Merced County, California

Page 477 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 3

1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Fishes

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
1

Page 478 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 4
Insects

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Colusa Grass Neostapfia colusana
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5690
Threatened
Critical habitats

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

Page 479 of 498 ends

01/04/2023 5
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Los Angeles city
Name: Lizbeth Pliego Orozco
Address: 617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910
City: Los Angeles
State: CA
Zip: 90014
Email [email protected]
Phone: 3107922690
Lead Agency Contact Information
Lead Agency: Atwater city

Page 480 of 498 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon - southern DPS
AFCAA01031 Threatened None G2T1 S1
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
Agrostis hendersonii
Henderson's bent grass
PMPOA040K0 None None G2Q S2 3.2
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Ardea alba
great egret
ABNGA04040 None None G5 S4
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex depressa
brittlescale
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
PDCHE042P0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Branchinecta conservatio
Conservancy fairy shrimp
ICBRA03010 Endangered None G2 S2
Branchinecta longiantenna
longhorn fairy shrimp
ICBRA03020 Endangered None G1 S2
Quad IS (Arena (3712036) OR Atwater (3712035) OR Cressey (3712046) OR Turlock (3712047) OR Stevinson (3712037) OR San Luis Ranch (3712027) OR Turner Ranch (3712026) OR Sandy Mush (3712025) OR Winton (3712045) OR Yosemite Lake (3712044) OR Merced (3712034) OR El Nido (3712024))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 4 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Bellevue Road Project

Page 481 of 498 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
Branchinecta mesovallensis
midvalley fairy shrimp
ICBRA03150 None None G2 S2S3
Brasenia schreberi
watershield
PDCAB01010 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta
succulent owl's-clover
PDSCR0D3Z1 Threatened Endangered G4?T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
Charadrius montanus
mountain plover
ABNNB03100 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum
hispid salty bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0D1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
ABNKC11011 None None G5 S3 SSC
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
CTT52310CA None None G1 S1.1
Clarkia rostrata
beaked clarkia
PDONA050Y0 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T2T3 S3
Dipodomys heermanni dixoni
Merced kangaroo rat
AMAFD03062 None None G4T2T3 S2
Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0 None None GU S2 2B.2
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Eryngium racemosum
Delta button-celery
PDAPI0Z0S0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Eryngium spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled button-celery
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Euphorbia hooveri
Hoover's spurge
PDEUP0D150 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Report Printed on Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 4 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Page 482 of 498 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Falco columbarius
merlin
ABNKD06030 None None G5 S3S4 WL
Gambelia sila
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
ARACF07010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 FP
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP
Lagophylla dichotoma
forked hare-leaf
PDAST5J070 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Lasiurus frantzii
western red bat
AMACC05080 None None G4 S3 SSC
Lasthenia chrysantha
alkali-sink goldfields
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
PDAST5L0A1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1
Lepidium latipes var. heckardii
Heckard's pepper-grass
PDBRA1M0K1 None None G4T1 S1 1B.2
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard frog
AAABH01170 None None G5 S2 SSC
Lytta molesta
molestan blister beetle
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Monardella leucocephala
Merced monardella
PDLAM180C0 None None GX SX 1A
Mylopharodon conocephalus
hardhead
AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 SSC
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
Myrmosula pacifica
Antioch multilid wasp
IIHYM15010 None None GH SH
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians
shining navarretia
PDPLM0C0J2 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate vernal pool navarretia
PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
PMPOA4C010 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Report Printed on Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 4 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Page 483 of 498 ends

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2
Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Orcuttia pilosa
hairy Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G040 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Perognathus inornatus
San Joaquin pocket mouse
AMAFD01060 None None G2G3 S2S3
Phacelia ciliata var. opaca
Merced phacelia
PDHYD0C0S2 None None G5TH SH 3.2
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S4 SSC
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Sidalcea keckii
Keck's checkerbloom
PDMAL110D0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
ARADB36150 Threatened Threatened G2 S2
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii
Wright's trichocoronis
PDAST9F031 None None G4T3 S1 2B.1
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2
Record Count: 78
Report Printed on Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 4 Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Page 484 of 498 ends

NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM

BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA
RARE
PLANT
RANK
CA

ENDEMIC
DATE

ADDED PHOTO
Agrostis
hendersonii
Henderson's
bent grass
Poaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2Q S2 3.2 1974-
01-01
©2005
Steve
Matson
Astragalus
tener var.
tener
alkali milkvetchFabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata
heartscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01
© 1994
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Atriplex
coronata var.
coronata
crownscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Mar-Oct None None G4T3 S3 4.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 1994
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Atriplex
depressa
brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
Atriplex
minuscula
lesser saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2000
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Atriplex
persistens
vernal pool
smallscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 2001- 01-01 No Photo
Available

Page 485 of 498 ends

Preston,
Ph.D.

Brasenia
schreberi
watershield Cabombaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
(aquatic)
Jun-Sep None None G5 S3 2B.3 2010-
10-27
©2014
Kirsten
Bovee
Castilleja
campestris var.
succulenta
succulent
owl's-clover
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
(Mar)AprMayFT CE G4?
T2T3
S2S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
rudis
Parry's rough
tarplant
Asteraceae annual herb May-Oct None None G3T3 S3 4.2 Yes 2007- 05-22 No Photo
Available
Chloropyron
molle ssp.
hispidum
hispid salty
bird's-beak
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Jun-Sep None None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Clarkia
rostrata
beaked clarkia Onagraceae annual herb Apr-May None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory
Convolvulaceae annual herb Mar-Jul None None G4 S4 4.2 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Delphinium
hansenii ssp.
ewanianum
Ewan's
larkspur
Ranunculaceae perennial herb Mar-May None None G4T3 S3 4.2 Yes 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Delphinium
recurvatum
recurved
larkspur
Ranunculaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2? S2? 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Downingia
pusilla
dwarf
downingia
Campanulaceae annual herb Mar-May None None GU S2 2B.2 1980- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Eryngium
racemosum
Delta buttonceleryApiaceae annual/perennial
herb
(May)JunOctNone CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Eryngium
spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled
button-celery
Apiaceae annual/perennial
herb
Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1980-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Euphorbia
hooveri
Hoover's
spurge
Euphorbiaceae annual herb JulSep(Oct)FT None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Extriplex
joaquinana
San Joaquin
spearscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01 No Photo
Available

Page 486 of 498 ends

1/4/23, 12:34 PM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1&quad=3712035:3712036:3712046:3712047:3712037:3712027:3712026:3712025:3712045:3712044:3712034:3712024:&elev=:m:o 3/4 Fritillaria
agrestis
stinkbells Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
Mar-Jun None None G3 S3 4.2 Yes 1980-
01-01
© 2016
Aaron
Schusteff
Hesperevax
caulescens
hogwallow
starfish
Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G3 S3 4.2 Yes 2001- 01-01
© 2017
John
Doyen
Hordeum
intercedens
vernal barley Poaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G3G4 S3S4 3.2 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Lagophylla
dichotoma
forked hareleafAsteraceae annual herb Apr-May None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 2012- 03-13
© 2010
Chris
Winchell
Lasthenia
chrysantha
alkali-sink
goldfields
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 2019- 09-30
© 2009
California
State
University,
Stanislaus
Lasthenia
ferrisiae
Ferris'
goldfields
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-May None None G3 S3 4.2 Yes 2001- 01-01
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Jun None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 1994- 01-01
© 2013
Keir Morse
Lepidium
latipes var.
heckardii
Heckard's
pepper-grass
Brassicaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G4T1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
2018
Jennifer
Buck
Leptosiphon
ambiguus
serpentine
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G4 S4 4.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2010
Aaron
Schusteff
Monardella
leucocephala
Merced
monardella
Lamiaceae annual herb May-Aug None None GX SX 1A Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available

Page 487 of 498 ends

Hartwell
Phacelia
ciliata var.
opaca
Merced
phacelia
Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Feb-May None None G5TH SH 3.2 Yes 1980- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Puccinellia
simplex
California alkali
grass
Poaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2 S2 1B.2 2015-
10-15 No Photo
Available
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
Alismataceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
(emergent)
MayOct(Nov)None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-
01-01
©2013
Debra L.

Cook
Sidalcea keckii Keck's
checkerbloom
Malvaceae annual herb AprMay(Jun)FE None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Trichocoronis
wrightii var.
wrightii
Wright's
trichocoronis
Asteraceae annual herb May-Sep None None G4T3 S1 2B.1 1988- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Showing 1 to 42 of 42 entries
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 4 January 2023].

Page 488 of 498 ends

Attachment E
VIA Questionnaire

Page 489 of 498 ends

3/22/23, 9:11 AM Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level | Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-visual-impact-assessment/lap-via-questionnaire 1/5 Home Programs Design Visual Impact Assessment VIA Questionnaire Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact
Assessment (VIA) Level
Use the following questions and subsequent score as a guide to help determine the appropriate level of VIA documentation. This questionnaire assists the VIA preparer (i.e. Landscape Architect) in estimating the probable visual impacts of a proposed project on the environment and in understanding the degree and breadth of the possible visual issues. The goal is to develop a suitable document strategy that is thorough, concise and defensible.

Enter the project name and consider each of the ten questions below. Select the response that most closely applies to the proposed project and corresponding number on the right side of the table. Points are automatically computed at the bottom of the table and the total score should be matched to one of the five groups of scores at the end of the questionnaire that include recommended levels of VIA study and associated annotated outlines (i.e., minor, moderate, advanced/complex).

This scoring system should be used as a preliminary guide and should not be used as a substitute for objective analysis on the part of the preparer. Although the total score may recommend a certain level of VIA document, circumstances associated with any one of the ten question-areas may indicate the need to elevate the VIA to a greater level of detail. For projects done by others on the State Highway System, the District Landscape Architect should be consulted when scoping the VIA level and provide concurrence on the level of analysis used.

The Standard Environmental Reference, Environmental Handbook, Volume I: Chapter 27-Visual & Aesthetics Review lists preparer qualifications for conducting the visual impact assessment process.

Landscape Architects receive formal training in the area of visual resource management and can appropriately determine which VIA level is appropriate.

Preparer Qualifications:
"Scenic Resource Evaluations and VIA's are performed under the direction of licensed Landscape Architects. Landscape Architects receive formal training in the area of visual resource management with a curriculum that emphasizes environmental design, human factors, and context sensitive solutions. When recommending specific visual mitigation measures, Landscape Architects can appropriately weigh the benefits of these different measures and consider construction feasibility and maintainability."
Calculate VIA Level Score
Project Information
Project Name
Bellevue Road Improvement Project
Project Identification #
Enter Project EA / Identification #
Preparer Name
Riley Vera
Caltrans District Landscape Architect (DLA)
About Caltrans Contact Us ADA Certification Request ADA Compliant Documents  Settings  Translate Travel Work with Caltrans Programs Caltrans Near Me Search

Page 490 of 498 ends

3/22/23, 9:11 AM Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level | Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-visual-impact-assessment/lap-via-questionnaire 2/5 For projects on State Highway System Only, Name of Caltrans District Landscape Architect (DLA) providing VIA Questionnaire Score Concurrence - if different than above.

For Projects on State Highway System Only, Enter DLA Name Change to Visual Environment

1. Will the project result in a noticeable change in the physical characteristics of the existing environment?
Consider all project components and construction impacts - both permanent and temporary, including landform changes, structures, noise barriers, vegetation removal, railing, signage, and contractor activities.

Moderate Level of Change (2 points)

2. Will the project complement or contrast with the visual character desired by the community?
Evaluate the scale and extent of the project features compared to the surrounding scale of the community. Is the project likely to give an urban appearance to an existing rural or suburban community? Do you anticipate that the change will be viewed by the public as positive or negative? Research planning documents, or talk with local planners and community representatives to understand the type of visual environment local residents envision for their community.

High Compatibility (1 point)

3. What level of local concern is there for the types of project features (e.g., bridge structures, large excavations, sound barriers, or median planting removal) and construction impacts that are proposed?
Certain project improvements can be of special interest to local citizens, causing a heightened level of public concern, and requiring a more focused visual analysis.

Low Concern (1 point)

4. Will the project require redesign or realignment to minimize adverse change or will mitigation, such as landscape or architectural treatment, likely be necessary?
Consider the type of changes caused by the project, i.e., can undesirable views be screened or will desirable views be permanently obscured so a redesign should be considered? Mitigation Likely (1 point)

5. Will this project, when seen collectively with other projects, result in an aggregate adverse change (cumulative impacts) in overall visual quality or character?
Identify any projects (both Caltrans and local) in the area that have been constructed in recent years and those currently planned for future construction. The window of time and the extent of area applicable to possible cumulative impacts should be based on a reasonable anticipation of the viewing public's perception.

Cumulative Impacts Unlikely to Occur (1 point)
Viewer Sensitivity

1. What is the potential that the project proposal will be controversial within the community, or opposed by any organized group?

Page 491 of 498 ends

3/22/23, 9:11 AM Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level | Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-visual-impact-assessment/lap-via-questionnaire 3/5 This can be researched initially by talking with Caltrans and local agency management and staff familiar with the affected community's sentiments as evidenced by past projects and/or current information.

Low Potential (1 point)

2. How sensitive are potential viewer-groups likely to be regarding visible changes proposed by the project?
Consider among other factors the number of viewers within the group, probable viewer expectations, activities, viewing duration, and orientation. The expected viewer sensitivity level may be scoped by applying professional judgment, and by soliciting information from other Caltrans staff, local agencies and community representatives familiar with the affected community's sentiments and demonstrated concerns.

Moderate Sensitivity (2 points)

3. To what degree does the project's aesthetic approach appear to be consistent with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, policies or standards?
Although the State is not always required to comply with local planning ordinances, these documents are critical in understanding the importance that communities place on aesthetic issues. The Caltrans Environmental Planning branch may have copies of the planning documents that pertain to the project. If not, this information can be obtained by contacting the local planning department. Also, many local and state planning documents can be found online at the California Land Use Planning Network.

High Compatibility (1 point)

4. Are permits going to be required by outside regulatory agencies (i.e., Federal, State, or local)?
Permit requirements can have an unintended consequence on the visual environment.

Anticipated permits, as well as specific permit requirements - which are defined by the permitted, may be determined by talking with the project Environmental Planner and Project Engineer. Note:
coordinate with the Caltrans representative responsible for obtaining the permit prior to communicating directly with any permitting agency.

Maybe (2 points)

5. Will the project sponsor or public benefit from a more detailed visual analysis in order to help reach consensus on a course of action to address potential visual impacts?
Consider the proposed project features, possible visual impacts, and probable mitigation recommendations.

Maybe (2 points)
Calculate Total
It is recommended that you print a copy of these calculations for the project file.

Project Score: 14
Select An Outline Based Upon Project Score
The total score will indicate the recommended VIA level for the project. In addition to considering circumstances relating to any one of the ten questions-areas that would justify elevating the VIA level, also consider any other project factors that would have an effect on level selection.

Page 492 of 498 ends

3/22/23, 9:11 AM Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Level | Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-visual-impact-assessment/lap-via-questionnaire 4/5 Score 6-9
No noticeable visual changes to the environment are proposed and no further analysis is required. Print out a copy of this completed questionnaire for your project file or Preliminary Environmental Study (PES).

Score 10-14
Negligible visual changes to the environment are proposed. A brief Memorandum(see sample)addressing visual issues providing a rationale why a technical study is not required.

Score 15-19
Noticeable visual changes to the environment are proposed. An abbreviated VIA is appropriate in this case. The assessment would briefly describe project features, impacts and any avoidance and minimization measures. Visual simulations would be optional. Go to the Directions for using and accessing the Minor VIA Annotated Outline.

Score 20-24
Noticeable visual changes to the environment are proposed. A fully developed VIA is appropriate. This technical study will likely receive public review.Go to the Directions for using and accessing the Moderate VIA Annotated Outline.

Score 25-30
Noticeable visual changes to the environment are proposed. A fully developed VIA is appropriate that includes photo simulations. It is appropriate to alert the Project Development Team to the potential for highly adverse impacts and to consider project alternatives to avoid those impacts.Go to the Directions for using and accessing the Advanced/Complex VIA Annotated Outline.

Statewide Campaigns
 ADA Access
 Adopt-A-Highway
 Amber Alert
 Be Work Zone Alert
 CAL FIRE
 California Climate Investments
 California Connected
 California Transportation Plan 2050
 Clean California
 Energy Upgrade
 Go Safely California
 Keep Your Home
 Move Over Law
 CalOES: Power Outage and Fire Recovery Resources
 REAL ID
 Save Our Water
 Stormwater Education Campaign
 Tenant and Landlord Resources
 Unclaimed Property
Back to Top Accessibility Privacy Policy Conditions of Use Register to Vote  

Page 493 of 498 ends

ATTACHMENT K.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BETWEEN DOLE

INTERNATIONAL AND MERCED COUNTY

Page 494 of 498 ends

,
p
MB,RCBD C O •; N '1' Y
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

Merced County Planning Department
Conditional t:se Penait No. "--=--- 3721
2208
Re:011111DI\'
P�J'µpX JAN17994,ul))dln-l
rvoL.3194 PACE928
OFFl.�o,
MERCIOCOUNlY
CAI.WORNIA
o\\
JM.l!SLBAI.L
�
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use

RECORD OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Property Owner(s) of Record:

J. R. Wood, Inc.

P. O. Box 545
Atwater• CA 95301
Property Address:
7916 West Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301
Assessor• s Parcel Nm.,ber UO::QJQ-004
Statement of Understanding:

Conditional Use Pemit (CUP) No. _,,,,,.
3,.72 ... 1�-- was approved by the Planning Commission
on December 15. 1993 The CUP is subject to twenty-four (241 cot:ditions of approval as indirated on the attached permit (Attachment A) and shown on the attached plot plan (Attachment B), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.

C�nclusion:

Such Recording sh.ill serve as notke to the prop'!rty owner or subsec:uent property owner that the fulfillment and implementation of such conditions shall be required prior co subsAquent issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for devdopment of the property. (Ord. 1421, 1992).

Planning Director
County of Merced
C-97
January 12, 1994
Date
'V0t3194 PACE928 9/92
I
1 ·:

I• •
. .
, I l ' 'I

Page 495 of 498 ends

'
'
...

MB.Rt'ED C O U N '11 Y
COUN1Y OF MERCED

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CONDmOSAL USE PERMIT NO. 3721

ATTACHMENT A
Date of Issue: DECEMBER 15, 1993
ACCORDANCE WJffl
'1111S PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 15, 1994, IF USR IS NOT EXERCISED IN SECTION 18.180.100 Of 11fE ZOJ\,1NG CODE.

Issued To: J.R. Wood, Inc., P.O. Box 545, Atwater, CA 95301 Assessor's Parcel No: 150-030-004
Location of Property Subject to This Permit On the nonh and south sides of Bellewe Road between Orchard Park Avenue and Vine Avenue in the Atwater area.

Description of Permitted Use: A multi-year expansion plan tor an exlstin& qrlcultural products Processin& ractllty to add approximately 192,000 square feet or structures and addalonaJ parklq and lanclscaplq to Ille existing 308,000 square rcet of structures on a 157-acre site.

Your Conditional Use Application No. 3721 was Approv� on Wednesday, December 15, 1993, by the Planning Commission. No appeal was made to the Board of Supervisors by 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 1993.

Therefore, you may start the approved use subject to the following conditions:

1. The Conditional Use Permit is granted only for a multi-year expansion plan for uses which shall be located, developed and operated in a manner as descnoed on the approved plot plan. se..-tions, and elevations. Conditional Use Permit No. 3721 also incorporates the unused portions of Conditional Director.

Use Permit Nos. 2978, 3470 and 3526. Minor modifications may be approved by the Planning

2. All development on the project property shall be constructed and thereafter maintained and operated in accordance with the conditions of the permit.

3. The application shall comply with all applicabli! regulations adcinistered by the County. Thest regulations shall include, but not be limited to standards administered by the County Frre, Health, Planning and Public Works Departments.

4. If the Conditional Use Permit is not used within onr year, it shall become automatically void without funher action. The Planning Commission may extend the Conditional Use Permit if a request is filed by the applicant prior to its expiratio;i. (Zoning Code Section 18.008.090).

5. If the uses authorized by the Conditional Use Permit are abandoned or discontinued for a period of one year or more, the Permit shall become automatically void without further action. (Zoning Code Section 18.008.100).

6. Any complaints received by J.R. Wood, Inc� from surrounding property ownel'S or residents concerning operations at this facility shall immediately be referred to tbe County Em,ironmental Health Division.

7. The noise levels from this facility shall not exc.eed 65 dBA Ldn adjacent to the residential subdivisions to the east within the Atwater City limits.

8. All lighting shall be directed so as not to create annoying, unacceptable glare on adjacent roads and parcels.

MERCED COUN'IY Pl.ANNING COMMISSION
Ro�h:lanning Director
cc: Assessor and Public Works. Road Division B
y �--+=-IIUli::!111.----------
Form 102 • 10/92
◄
319
20/Forml02p/cup/1/11/94/ab
'VOL 4 PAGE 929
l
['
I .
i •
•
I
I
l.

Page 496 of 498 ends

' I 'I
t '
I
•
ME.RC2D COt,NTY
Conditions of Awa>val for C.onditional Use Permit No. 3721 -Continued:

9. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan for this facility shall be updated annually, or after new operations, procedures or construction that affect the Plan. and reviewed by the County Environmental Health Division and Fire Depanment

10. All drainage shall remain onsite.

11. The new parking areas and landscaping at the nonheast and southeast comers of Bellevue Road and Vine Avenue shall be paved and striped according to the plot plan and the standards in Section 18.168 of the Merced County Zoning Code.

12. If the 4.5-acre area approved for paving and storage at the nonhwest comer of this facility under Conditional Use Permit No. 3526 is constructed and used for storage prior to the construction of the two new di)' storage bu ildings in this permit, a five-foot wide landscaped strip with oleanders on 12- foot centers shall be installed along Vine Avenue adjacent to the new paved area.

13. Three copies of landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director in accordance with the standards in Chapter 16.40 of the Merced County Code prior to the issuance of building permits for the new parking or paved storage areas.

14. la.'lds<-aping and irrigation in compliance with ™ approved plans shall be installed prior to Fmal Inspection by the County Building Division.

15. Landscaping shall be provided for with permanent, automatic irrigation systems.

16. Landscaping shall be maintained in healthy, weed-free condition at all times. ffaje Section 18,104,080}

17. Equipment and material storag� areas shall be screened from surrounding public roadways.

18. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times.

19. /JI J.R. Wood trucks going to and from the facUlly shall use tile Bellevue Road/Winton Way/Highway 99 route. All other trucks shall be encouraged to use this route. If modiftcations occur to the Highway '!19/Grove Avenue Intersection with property north/south acceleration/ deceleration lanes and turn pockets, alternate routes could be approved subject to approval or the County Public Works and Planning Directors and after consultation with the City or Atwater.

20. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Merced County for the abandonment of existing Bellevue RoaJ with the following stipulations:
a. The abandonment shall be in accordance with Chapter 13.06, Abandoning or Terminating Maintenance on Roadways, of the Merceo County Code.
i>. Abandomnent shall not occur until an acceptable alternative route is in place.

21. The applicant shall agree to dedicate to Merced County along tile realignment route of Bellevue Road, a 40-foot wide road right-of-way from Vine Avenue (extension) to the westerly intersection with present Bellevue Road and a 20-foot wide road right-of-way from Orchard Park Avenue (extension) to Vine Avenue (extension). The balance of necessary road 1ight-of-way will be purchased by Merced County at an agreed market value as determined by an appraISal conducted just prior to construction.

22. The applicant sh2.II dedicate to Merced County a 60-foot wide road right-of-way extending Orchard Park Avenue to the intersection <,f the relocated Bellevue Road.

23. 1n the case that realignment of Bellevue Avenue takes place prior to the construction of the Westside Boulevard/State Highway 99 intercha11ge, the applicant shall also dedicate to Merced County a 60- foot wide road right-of-way extending V:ne Avenue to the intersection of the relocated Bellevue Road.

24. For the purpose or condition monitoring, an initial and annual Inspection fee In the amount of $500.00, or other fee as determined by the Planning Director, shall be required. This fee shall be paid prior to Issuance of a Building Pennlt. The annual ree shall be adjusted up or down at the end of the first and succeeding years based on actual County costs.

PJ:EME NOTE:

This permit is being recorded in compliance with Ordinance No. 1422. A recorded copy may be olJCaiaed st the County Planning Department. A copy ofyonr conditional nse permit will be sent to the Merud County Assessor in compliance with the California Planning and Zoning Law, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article z.Section 65863.5 •
Q
I
I
I
I
I
i'.

I '
I·
l •
'
'.

I
I
I
I-
..
i
..

Page 497 of 498 ends

t
i
..
,
•
◄
l'IE,RCED COUNTY

ATTACHMENT B
__ .IZl,00
,
! C , , I
Bii!i
APPRMD
sc:e: PETAtL PLOT PLA-N� ()F -r,'fe; 1tvo1cArEO
sft£c1F1c /IJ?£A.

PLOT PLAN
Conditional Use Application No. _3_?._:Z_/ ___ _
For J: f?. W�OP 1/VC •
Date :l_-.2/ - 93 APX. fJ

SCALE IN FEE'T
·vot3194 PAGE931
I
/ •.

I l-.
f
I·
I
I
1·.

I
I
1 -·
I.

I
I·
..
'
' '

Page 498 of 498 ends

Atwater City CouncilOctober 9, 2023

Atwater City Council
October 9, 2023