14 The material culture of the southern San Joaquin Yokuts was therefore more closely related to that of their non-Yokuts neighbors than to that of Delta members of their own language group.
Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.
Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).
Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles.
Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).
The 1833 malaria epidemic that decimated the Indians in the Central Valley played a major role in defining the post-Contact land use pattern of the Indians of the region, as well as impacting EuroAmerican economic development. The introduction of malaria to central California circa 1831 occurred as a result of expeditions of several fur brigades of the Hudson’s Bay Company with infected individuals. The introduction of the disease led to the tremendous epidemic of 1833, resulting in the decimation of the Indian population of the region. An estimated three-quarter of the total Indian population of the region died from the disease in that year.
The Atwater area, north of the Merced River was occupied by the Northern Valley Yokuts, specifically the Coconoon tribelet. Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources.
House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925), with most constructed from the readily available tules found in the extensive marshes of the low-lying valley areas. The housepit depressions for the structures ranged in diameter from 3 meters to 18 meters (Wallace 1978:470).
Historic Period Background
Early exploration of the great interior valleys of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers began in the early years of the nineteenth century. Active exploration began to help control Indian riads on coastal settlements as well as to find suitable locations for missions for Indian conversion. There were several minor explorations, followed by a full-scale effort by Gabriel Morage with 26 men, leaving Mission San Juan Bautista in 1806, likely entering the valley by way of San Luis Creek in Merced County. The group proceeded across the San Joaquin River, and reached a slough that Morage named Las Mariposas for the number of butterflies they observed. The party travelled north and northwest, eventually reaching and naming the Merced River. Moraga again explored the Merced River’s lower course in 1808, and again in 1810. The mission fathers though the exploration was a failure since they failed to find suitable sites for an inland chain of missions.
15 The first American to pass though the San Joaquin Valley was Jedidiah Smith. He may not have travelled within the boundaries of Merced County. Following Smith were other adventurers, many of whom came to California to trap beaver. John C. Fremont, proceeded southward from Sutter’s Fort, passing through what is now Merced County, and reached the Merced River. The party built a raft and crossed the river near its junction with the San Joaquin River. Several days later, they stopped on the north bank of Bear Creek, five miles above the mouth of the creek.
The Atwater Planning Area does not lie on any portion of the 1840s Mexican land grants present in the County.
Atwater began as a station on the line of the Central Pacific, as they built their line south and east down the valley. The station was placed on the ranch of Marshall D. Atwater, a leading wheat farmer in the area. Six years later, a town with the same name was established by the Merced Land and Fruit Company. Atwater, John Mitchell, and George Bloss, all made substantial contributions to the towns of Atwater and other cities in the Merced region. The Bloss home is the headquarters of the Atwater Historical Society, and is a house museum. The family endowed many other local Atwater institutions.
The Merced Army Air Field south of town was one of many small fields established in World War II for training flight personnel. It later became Castle Air Force Base, re-named for Frederick Castle, a Medal of Honor award winner after he was shot down in late 1944. In 1981, the Castle Air Museum opened next to the base. The base closed in 1995.
RESEARCH
A record search was conducted for the project area at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System for the Atwater General Plan Update on August 29, 2023 as RS12636I (Appendix 2).
Since this is a current search that included the project area, we can use the maps to indicate there are no sites in the project area, and no surveys covering any substantial portion of the project area.
FIELD ASSESSMENT
Michael Lawson (resume, Appendix 1) completed a field survey of the project site on December 28, 2023, with a complete inspection of the proposed project site (Figure 2). The survey was conducted along the two proposed alignments to either widen Bellevue Road, or re-Route it through agricultural land to the south.
Complete survey consisted of parallel transects five to ten meters apart along both sides of Bellevue Road to a width of 20 meters, and along proposed alternate route through fruit orchards with a maximum observed width of 30 meters.
16 Soil through the orchards consisted of sand and light silt, light tan in color and likely disturbed by farming. The soil along Bellevue Road was similar but with added gravel road base and loam fill.
The survey was negative for historic and prehistoric resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Although there is no evidence of prehistoric period occupancy or use of the parcel, if artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of shell or bone are uncovered during the construction, the construction team should stop in that area immediately and a qualified archeologist should be contacted to evaluate the deposit. If the bone appears to be human, the Merced County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted (916-378-3710). No other mitigation measure is recommended.
17 REFERENCES
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2): 155-236. Berkeley.
Baumhoff, Martin A., and David Olmsted
1963 Radiocarbon support for Glottochronology. American Anthropologist 65(2): 278-284. 1964 Notes on Palaihnihan culture history: glottochronology and archaeology. Studies in California linguistics, edited by William Bright, pp. 1-12. University of California Publications in Linguistics 34. Berkeley.
Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 2).
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1960 Colonial expeditions to the interior of California: Central Valley 1800-1820. University of California Anthropological Records 16(6): 239-292. Berkeley. 1955a The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Press Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.
1955b The Epidemic of 1830-33 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3): 303-326. Berkeley.
Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.
Fredrickson, David A.
1967 Additional C-14 dates for water resources investigations at Buena Vista Lake. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 1(5).
Fredrickson, David A., and J. Grossman
1966 Radiocarbon Dating of an Early Site at Buena Vista Lake, California. Paper read before the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Reno. 1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(2): 173-190.
Gifford, E. W., and W. E. Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No. 1. Berkeley.
18 Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe 1970 Historic Spots in California (Third Edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Washington, D.C.
Latta, Franklin F.
1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., and William K. Purves
1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California.
Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.
Meighan, Clement W.
1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity 24(3): 289- 318.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen
1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California. American Antiquity 34(2): 121- 131. Washington, D.C.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3. San Diego.
Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4): 289-413. Berkeley.
Wallace, William J.
1978 Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians (vol. 8), edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
19 1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians (vol. 8), edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wedel, Waldo R.
1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. Washington, D.C.
20 APPENDIX 1
Resumes
21 PEAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RESUME
MELINDA A. PEAK January 2023
Senior Historian/Archeologist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Peak has served as the principal investigator on a wide range of prehistoric and historic excavations throughout California. She has directed laboratory analyses of archeological materials, including the historic period. She has also conducted a wide variety of cultural resource assessments in California, including documentary research, field survey, Native American consultation, and report preparation.
In addition, Ms. Peak has developed a second field of expertise in applied history, specializing in site-specific research for historic period resources. She has completed a number of historical research projects for a wide variety of site types.
Through her education and experience, Ms. Peak meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historian, architectural historian, prehistoric archeologist, and historic archeologist.
EDUCATION
M.A. - History - California State University, Sacramento, 1989 Thesis: The Bellevue Mine: A Historical Resources Management Site Study in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California
B.A. - Anthropology - University of California, Berkeley
PROJECTS
In recent months, Ms. Peak has completed several determinations of eligibility and effect documents in coordination with the Corps of Engineers for projects requiring federal permits, assessing the eligibility of many varying types of sites for the National Register of Historic Places.
She has also completed historical research projects on a wide variety of topics for numbers of projects including the development of navigation and landings on the Napa River, wineries, farmhouses dating to the 1860s, bridges, an early roadhouse, Folsom Dam, and a section of an electric railway line.
In recent years, Ms. Peak has prepared many cultural resource overviews and predictive models for blocks of land proposed for future development for general and specific plans. She has been able to field direct a number of surveys of these areas, allowing the model to be tested.
22 She served as principal investigator for the multi-phase Twelve Bridges Golf Club project in Placer County.
She served as liaison with the various agencies, helped prepare the historic properties treatment plan, managed the various phases of test and data recovery excavations, and completed the final report on the analysis of the test phase excavations of several prehistoric sites. She is has served as the principal investigator for several large excavations, coordinating contacts with Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Historic Preservation.
Ms. Peak has served as project manager for other major survey and excavation projects, including the many surveys and site definition excavations for the 172-mile-long Pacific Pipeline proposed for construction in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. She also completed an archival study in the City of Los Angeles for the project. She also served as principal investigator for a major coaxial cable removal project for AT&T.
Additionally, she completed a number of small surveys, served as a construction monitor at several urban sites, and conducted emergency recovery excavations for sites found during monitoring. She has directed the excavations of several historic complexes in Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties.
Ms. Peak is the author of a chapter and two sections of a published history (1999) of Sacramento County, Sacramento: Gold Rush Legacy, Metropolitan Legacy. She served as the consultant for a children’s book on California, published by Capstone Press in 2003 in the Land of Liberty series.
23 PEAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RESUME
MICHAEL LAWSON January 2023
Archeological Field Director
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95672
(916) 939-2405
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Lawson has compiled an excellent record of undertaking excavation and survey projects for both the public and private sectors over the past thirty years. He has conducted many surveys throughout northern and central California and Hawaii, as well as serving as an archeological technician, site monitor, crew chief and field director for numbers of excavation projects.
Mr. Lawson is qualified by the Bureau of Land Management as a field director for archeological surveys and excavations. In 2022, he led teams as the field director on several field surveys in the Sierras for the proposed undergrounding of PG&E transmission lines, dealing with both historic and prehistoric cultural resources.
Lawson works for several firms based in the Sacramento Area and Bay Area.
EDUCATION
B.A. - Anthropology - California State University, Sacramento.
Special Course: Comparative Osteology. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Forensic Anthropology Center. January 2018.
The special course included: intensive lab and outdoor study with human example from outdoor research facility, including typical and non-metric examples, compared with fifty non-human species most confused with human remains. Work at the outdoor research facility “The Body Farm” study included survey, photography, collection, and identification of faunal and human bone fragments, with a Power Point presentation discussing finds.
EXPERIENCE
• Extensive monitoring of open space, streets and project development areas for prehistoric period and historic period resources. Areas monitored include Sutter Street in Folsom; Mud Creek Archeological District in Chico; Camp Roberts, San Luis Obispo County; Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County; Edgewood Golf Course, South Lake Tahoe; Davis Water Project, Davis; Star Bend levee section, Sutter County; Feather River levees, Sutter County; Bodega Bay, Sonoma County; San Jose BART line extension, Santa Clara County; and numerous sites for PG&E in San Francisco.
24 • Over thirty years of experience working in cultural resource management, volunteer, and academic settings in California historic, proto-historic, and prehistoric archaeology. • Expertise in pedestrian survey, excavation, feature (including burial) exposure, laboratory techniques, research. Field positions include field director, assistant field director, crew chief and lead technician.
INITIAL STUDY BELLEVUE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION/REALIGNMENT PROJECT PAGE 120
APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
Environmental Noise Assessment
Bellevue Reconstruction/Realignment
Project
City of Atwater, California
February 9, 2024
Project #240103
Prepared for:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane #106
El Dorado Hills, California 95762
Prepared by:
Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.
Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE)
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE ........................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS ........................................................................... 6 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 6 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 8 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ................................................. 10 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 10 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 11 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 12 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 12 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................ 12 STATE .................................................................................................................................................... 12 LOCAL .................................................................................................................................................... 12 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION ........................................................................................................ 14 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................... 15 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................. 15 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 25 List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan – Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Site Plan – Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Site Plan – Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 4: Sensitive Receptor Locations ......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Noise Measurement Sites .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 6: Sound wall Locations ................................................................................................................... 23
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 8 Table 3: Traffic Noise Levels, Ldn ................................................................................................................. 11 Table 4: Construction Equipment Noise ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment .................................................................. 12 Table 6: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise Sources ........................................... 13 Table 7: Noise Standards for New Uses Affected by Traffic, Railroad, and Airport Noise .......................... 14 Table 8: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings ................................................................................ 15 Table 9: Traffic Noise Impact Assessment – Alternative 1 .......................................................................... 18 Table 10: Traffic Noise Impact Assessment – AlternaƟve 2 ........................................................................ 19 Table 11: Traffic Noise Impact Assessment – Alternative 3 ........................................................................ 20 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment Project would begin on existing Bellevue Road between Olive Avenue and Grove Avenue to the west and end at the intersection of Parade Street and Bellevue Road to the east. The project would restore Bellevue Road as a major entry to the northern portion of the City of Atwater (City), provide a direct route between SR-99, the City of Atwater and the Castle Commerce Center to the east, and would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Project site is generally flat and traverses mostly orchards and open fields. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single family homes primarily along the east side of the project area (along Bellevue Road) in addition to several residential uses west of the project area.
Figures 1-3 shows the project site plan for Alternatives 1-3.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).
Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.
Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, California
Figure 1
Alternative 1
Project Location
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, California
Figure 2
Alternative 2
Project Location
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, California
Figure 3
Alternative 3
Project Location
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10- decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.
Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.
TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.
With regards to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived; Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response.
Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.
EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS
EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise-sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.
Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing singlefamily residential uses located near the west and east ends of the project. Sensitive receptor locations analyzed in this report are shown on Figure 4.
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction
City of Atwater, CAFigure 4Receptors Location Map
Legend
City of Atwater LimitsProject Site
3 Outdoor Area Noise Level
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction
R1
R5
R4
R2
R3
R7
R8
R10
R11
R13 R14
R15
R6
R9
R12
R16 R17 R18
Scale 1:870
0 100 200 400 600 800
feet
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx
EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on the SR 99 and local roadways. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at three locations in the project area. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 5. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.
The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.
Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Location Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1: 50 feet to CL
of Bellevue Rd. 1/18/24 63 55 51 75 58 55 71
LT-2: 200 feet to CL
of SR-99 1/18/24 80 75 75 84 73 71 84
LT-3: 200 feet to CL
of Bellevue Rd. 1/18/24 66 62 58 81 59 57 75
All values shown in dBA
Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.
Bellevue Realignment
Reconstruction
City of Atwater, California
Figure 5
Noise Measurement Sites
Bellevue Road
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at sensitive receptors for existing and design year, project, and no-project conditions for alternatives 1-3.
Existing, design year, and design year plus project noise levels due to traffic were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Models (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.
Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (Fehr & Peers 2024), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. The predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network which would result from the project are provided in terms of Ldn.
The modeled noise levels for the project roadway network, including State Highway 99, were mapped using the SoundPLAN noise prediction model calibrated to existing conditions and adjusted to account for the changes in roadway traffic and Bellevue Road alignment.
Table 3 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels at each of the identified receptor locations along Bellevue Road. Appendix C provides the traffic inputs used in the traffic noise modeling.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 3: TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS, DBA LDN
R# Existing Design Year Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1 65.5 65.5 65.7 65.7 65.7
2 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6
3 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.4 62.4
4 67.5 67.6 67.7 67.7 67.7
5 65.7 65.8 66.6 66.6 66.6
6 59.1 59.5 61.6 67.5 67.3
7 58.6 58.7 61.8 62.2 62.2
8 53.5 53.6 55.0 55.1 55.1
9 61.7 61.7 63.8 62.5 62.5
10 56.8 56.4 62.1 59.8 59.8
11 56.4 56.3 62.2 61.0 61.0
12 57.6 58.6 64.0 63.2 63.2
13 60.1 61.5 67.0 65.5 65.5
14 56.3 56.8 59.6 59.1 59.1
15 55.4 55.5 57.4 57.5 57.5
16 58.9 59.4 63.3 67.9 67.8
17 64.1 62.1 64.8 67.1 67.1
18 62.2 61.1 64.3 65.8 65.8
CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 4, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.
TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities relocation, and paving occur. Table 5 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.
TABLE 5: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels.
CEQA standards are discussed more below under the Thresholds of Significance section.
LOCAL
City of Atwater General Plan
Policy NO-2.4. Mitigate noise created by new transportation noise sources consistent with the levels specified in Table 6-6 (Table 6) in outdoor activity areas or interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 6: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas1 Ldn/CNEL, dBA Interior Spaces Ldn/CNEL, dBA Leq1, dBA2
Residential 603 45 --
Transient Lodging 603 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 603 45 --
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 603 -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 603 -- 40
Office Buildings -- -- 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums 603 -- 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 -- --
Policy NO-2.5. Consider the significance of noise level increases associated with major roadway improvement projects prior to construction. In instances where mitigation will not reduce noise volumes to the levels recommended in Table 6-6 (Table 6), the following criteria should be used as a test of significance for roadway improvement projects:
a. Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, in the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, roadway improvement projects which increase noise levels to 60 dB Ldn will not be considered significant.
b. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive land uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.
c. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas on noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.
City of Atwater Municipal Code – 8.44.050 Construction
8.44.050 Construction
A. Permissible Hours of Construction. All construction for which a grading or building permit is required shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. For purposes of this section, "construction" or "construction activity" shall include site preparation, demolition, grading, excavation, and the erection, improvement, remodeling or repair of structures, including operation of equipment or machinery and the delivery of materials associated with those activities.
Merced County General Plan
The following noise level standards have been developed in order to quantify noise impacts in the County.
Table HS-1 (Table 7) shows the noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas affected by traffic, railroad, or airport noise sources in the County. Table HS-2 shows the interior and exterior noise level standards for noisesensitive areas affected by existing non-transportation noise sources in the County. In addition to these standards, the policies in this section address ways to reduce or eliminate existing and future conflicts between land uses and noise.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 7: NOISE STANDARDS FOR NEW USES AFFECTED BY TRAFFIC, RAILROAD, AND AIRPORT NOISE New Land Use Sensitive1 Outdoor Area (Ldn) Sensitive Interior2 Area (Ldn) Notes All Residential 65 45 3
Transient Lodging 65 45 3,4
Hospitals & Nursing Homes 65 45 3,4,5
Theaters & Auditoriums --- 35 4
Churches, Meeting Halls,
Schools, Libraries, etc. 65 40 4
Office Buildings 65 45 4
Commercial Buildings --- 50 4
Playgrounds, Parks, etc. 70 ---
Industry 65 50 4
Notes:
1. Sensitive Outdoor Areas include primary outdoor activity areas associated with any given land use at which noise-sensitivity exists and the location at which the County’s exterior noise level standards are applied.
2. Sensitive Interior Areas includes any interior area associated with any given land use at which noisesensitivity exists and the location at which the County’s interior noise level standards are applied. Examples of sensitive interior spaces include, but are not limited to, all habitable rooms of residential and transient lodging facilities, hospital rooms, classrooms, library interiors, offices, worship spaces, theaters. Interior noise level standards are applied within noise-sensitive areas of the various land uses with windows and doors in the closed positions.
3. Railroad warning horn usage shall not be included in the computation of Ldn.
4. Only the interior noise level standard shall apply if there are no sensitive exterior spaces proposed for these uses.
5. Since hospitals are often noise-generating uses, the exterior noise level standards are applicable only to clearly identified areas designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients.
Policy HS-7.9: Transportation Project Construction/Improvements (RDR) Require transportation project proponents to prepare all acoustical analysis for all roadway and railway construction projects in accordance with Policy HS-7.2; additionally, rail projects shall require the preparation of a groundborne vibration analysis in accordance with Policy HS7.2. Consider noise mitigation measures to reduce traffic and/or rail noise levels to comply with Table HS-1 standards if pre-project noise levels already exceed the noise standards of Table HS-1 and the increase is significant. The County defines a significant increase as follows:
Pre-Project Noise Environment (Ldn) Significant Increase Less than 60 dB 5+ dB
60 – 65 dB 3+ dB
Greater than 65 dB 1.5+ dB
CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.
Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.
Table 8, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.
Table 8 indicates that the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. A threshold of
0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short-term construction projects.
TABLE 8: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/second in/second
0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type
2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings
5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered walls
and ceilings. Special types of finish such
as lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Caltrans. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Significance criteria for noise impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XI [a-c]).
Would the project:
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
With temporary noise impacts (construction), identification of “substantial increases” depends upon the duration of the impact, the temporal daily nature of the impact, and the absolute change in decibel levels. Per the City of Atwater Municipal Code, construction activities operating before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, or before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays which create a noise disturbance at the property boundary of a residence are prohibited and would be considered a significant impact.
The City of Atwater and Merced County have not adopted any formal standard for evaluating temporary construction noise which occurs within allowable hours. For short-term noise associated with Project construction, Saxelby Acoustics recommends use of the Caltrans increase criteria of 12 dBA (Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol, 2020), applied to existing residential receptors in the project vicinity. This level of increase is approximately equivalent to a doubling of sound energy and has been the standard of significance for Caltrans projects at the state level for many years. Application of this standard to construction activities is considered reasonable considering the temporary nature of construction activities.
Noise Level Increase Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases For receptors withing the City of Atwater, the following test of significance would apply, as outlined in Policy NO-2.5 of the City of Atwater General Plan:
a. Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, in the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, roadway improvement projects which increase noise levels to 60 dB Ldn will not be considered significant.
b. Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive land uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.
c. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn in the outdoor activity areas on noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.
For receptors withing Merced County, the following test of significance would apply, as outlined in Policy HS7.9 of the Merced County General Plan:
Require transportation project proponents to prepare all acoustical analysis for all roadway and railway construction projects in accordance with Policy HS-7.9; additionally, rail projects
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx shall require the preparation of a groundborne vibration analysis in accordance with Policy HS7.9. Consider noise mitigation measures to reduce traffic and/or rail noise levels to comply with Table HS-1 standards if pre-project noise levels already exceed the noise standards of Table HS-1 and the increase is significant. The County defines a significant increase as follows:
Pre-Project Noise Environment (Ldn) Significant Increase Less than 60 dB 5+ dB
60 – 65 dB 3+ dB
Greater than 65 dB 1.5+ dB
PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
Based upon the City of Atwater Policy NO-2.5, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are between 60 dBA Ldn and 65 dBA Ldn, a +3.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn, roadway improvement projects which increase noise levels to over 60 dB Ldn will be considered significant.
It should be noted that there are noise sensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed project, based upon the Merced County Policy HS-7.9, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are between 60 dBA Ldn and 65 dBA Ldn, a +3.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn, a +5.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway
Tables 9-11 list each receptor and whether project-related traffic noise increases constitute a significant impact as defined by the above-listed significance criteria. Where significant impacts are predicted the analysis includes an evaluation of whether the impact can be mitigated through the use of quiet pavement or sound walls.
Quiet pavements overlays are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction. Assuming a minimum reduction of 4 dBA, quiet pavement placed along sensitive receptor on the roadway segments predicted to see a significant increase in traffic noise levels could reduce noise level increases to a less than significant level.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 9: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ALTERNATIVE 1 Receiver ID
Address
ExisƟng
Design Year
Design Year Plus
Project
Increase
Criteria
Impact?
Design Year Plus Project – w/ Quiet
Pavement
Design Year Plus Project – w/ 6’
Sound Wall
Change,
w/Quiet
Pavement
Level
w/Quiet
Pavement
Impact
w/Quiet
pavement?
Change, w/
6’ Wall
Level w/
6’ Wall
Impact
w/Wall?
R1 4909 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.5 65.5 65.7 0.2 +1.5 dBA No -3.8 61.7 No 0.2 65.7 No R2 8470 Olive Ave, Winton, CA 95388 71.6 71.6 71.6 0.0 +1.5 dBA No -4.0 67.6 No 0.0 71.6 No R3 5246 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 62.3 62.3 62.4 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 58.4 No 0.1 62.4 No R4 4904 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 67.5 67.6 67.7 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 63.7 No 0.1 67.7 No R5 4966 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.7 65.8 66.6 0.8 +1.5 dBA No -3.2 62.6 No 0.8 66.6 No R6 2492 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 59.1 59.5 61.6 2.1 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -1.9 57.6 No -1.0 58.5 No R7 2921 Mardi Gras Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 58.6 58.7 61.8 3.1 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.9 57.8 No 0.8 59.5 No R8 2069 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 53.5 53.6 55.0 1.4 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.6 51.0 No 1.4 55.0 No R9 2397 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 61.7 61.7 63.8 2.1 +3 dBA No -1.9 59.8 No 0.5 62.2 No R10 2387 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.8 56.4 62.1 5.7 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 1.7 58.1 No 3.4 59.8 No R11 2371 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.4 56.3 62.2 5.9 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 1.9 58.2 No 3.5 59.8 No R12 2347 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 57.6 58.6 64.0 5.4 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 1.4 60.0 No 2.9 61.5 No R13 2298 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 60.1 61.5 67.0 5.5 +3 dBA Yes 1.5 63.0 No 3.0 64.5 No R14 2182 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 56.3 56.8 59.6 2.8 >60 or +3 dBA No -1.2 55.6 No 2.8 59.6 No R15 2238 Falcon Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 55.4 55.5 57.4 1.9 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.1 53.4 No 1.6 57.1 No R16 2472 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 58.9 59.4 63.3 3.9 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.1 59.3 No -0.9 58.5 No R17 2422 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 64.1 62.1 64.8 2.7 +3 dBA Yes -1.3 60.8 No -6.3 55.8 No R18 2920 Virginia St, Atwater, CA 95301 62.2 61.1 64.3 3.2 +3 dBA Yes -0.8 60.3 No -3.0 58.1 No Note: Bold indicates where project-related traffic is predicted to exceed the increase criteria or cause traffic noise levels to exceed the local exterior noise standard.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 10: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ALTERNATIVE 2 Receiver ID
Address
ExisƟng
Design Year
Design Year Plus
Project
Increase
Criteria
Impact?
Design Year Plus Project – w/ Quiet
Pavement
Design Year Plus Project – w/
6’ Sound Wall
Change,
w/Quiet
Pavement
Level
w/Quiet
Pavement
Impact
w/Quiet
pavement?
Change,
w/
6’ Wall
Level w/
6’ Wall
Impact
w/Wall?
R1 4909 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.5 65.5 65.7 0.2 +1.5 dBA No -3.8 61.7 No 0.2 65.7 No R2 8470 Olive Ave, Winton, CA 95388 71.6 71.6 71.6 0.0 +1.5 dBA No -4.0 67.6 No 0.0 71.6 No R3 5246 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 62.3 62.3 62.4 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 58.4 No 0.1 62.4 No R4 4904 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 67.5 67.6 67.7 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 63.7 No 0.1 67.7 No R5 4966 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.7 65.8 66.6 0.8 +1.5 dBA No -3.2 62.6 No 0.8 66.6 No R6 2492 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 59.1 59.5 67.5 8.0 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 4.0 63.5 Yes 2.5 62.0 No R7 2921 Mardi Gras Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 58.6 58.7 62.2 3.5 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.5 58.2 No 1.0 59.7 No R8 2069 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 53.5 53.6 55.1 1.5 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.5 51.1 No 1.4 55.0 No R9 2397 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 61.7 61.7 62.5 0.8 +3 dBA No -3.2 58.5 No -0.3 61.4 No R10 2387 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.8 56.4 59.8 3.4 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.6 55.8 No 1.9 58.3 No R11 2371 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.4 56.3 61.0 4.7 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 0.7 57.0 No 2.8 59.1 No R12 2347 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 57.6 58.6 63.2 4.6 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 0.6 59.2 No 2.3 60.9 No R13 2298 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 60.1 61.5 65.5 4.0 +3 dBA Yes 0.0 61.5 No 1.9 63.4 No R14 2182 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 56.3 56.8 59.1 2.3 >60 or +3 dBA No -1.7 55.1 No 2.3 59.1 No R15 2238 Falcon Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 55.4 55.5 57.5 2.0 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.0 53.5 No 1.7 57.2 No R16 2472 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 58.9 59.4 67.9 8.5 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 4.5 63.9 Yes 2.1 61.5 No R17 2422 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 64.1 62.1 67.1 5.0 +3 dBA Yes 1.0 63.1 No -4.3 57.8 No R18 2920 Virginia St, Atwater, CA 95301 62.2 61.1 65.8 4.7 +3 dBA Yes 0.7 61.8 No -1.8 59.3 No Note: Bold indicates where project-related traffic is predicted to exceed the increase criteria or cause traffic noise levels to exceed the local exterior noise standard.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx TABLE 11: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ALTERNATIVE 3 Receiver ID
Address
ExisƟng
Design Year
Design Year Plus
Project
Increase
Criteria
Impact?
Design Year Plus Project – w/ Quiet
Pavement
Design Year Plus Project –
w/ 6’ Sound Wall
Change,
w/Quiet
Pavement
Level
w/Quiet
Pavement
Impact
w/Quiet
pavement?
Change,
w/
6’ Wall
Level w/
6’ Wall
Impact
w/Wall?
R1 4909 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.5 65.5 65.7 0.2 +1.5 dBA No -3.8 61.7 No 0.2 65.7 No R2 8470 Olive Ave, Winton, CA 95388 71.6 71.6 71.6 0.0 +1.5 dBA No -4.0 67.6 No 0.0 71.6 No R3 5246 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 62.3 62.3 62.4 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 58.4 No 0.1 62.4 No R4 4904 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 67.5 67.6 67.7 0.1 +1.5 dBA No -3.9 63.7 No 0.1 67.7 No R5 4966 Grove Ave, Winton, CA 95388 65.7 65.8 66.6 0.8 +1.5 dBA No -3.2 62.6 No 0.8 66.6 No R6 2492 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 59.1 59.5 67.3 7.8 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 3.8 63.3 Yes 2.4 61.9 No R7 2921 Mardi Gras Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 58.6 58.7 62.2 3.5 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.5 58.2 No 1.0 59.7 No R8 2069 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 53.5 53.6 55.1 1.5 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.5 51.1 No 1.4 55.0 No R9 2397 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 61.7 61.7 62.5 0.8 +3 dBA No -3.2 58.5 No -0.2 61.5 No R10 2387 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.8 56.4 59.8 3.4 >60 or +3 dBA Yes -0.6 55.8 No 1.9 58.3 No R11 2371 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 56.4 56.3 61.0 4.7 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 0.7 57.0 No 3.1 59.4 No R12 2347 Crestview Dr, Atwater, CA 95301 57.6 58.6 63.2 4.6 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 0.6 59.2 No 2.3 60.9 No R13 2298 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 60.1 61.5 65.5 4.0 +3 dBA Yes 0.0 61.5 No 1.9 63.4 No R14 2182 Bellevue Rd, Atwater, CA 95301 56.3 56.8 59.1 2.3 >60 or +3 dBA No -1.7 55.1 No 2.3 59.1 No R15 2238 Falcon Ct, Atwater, CA 95301 55.4 55.5 57.5 2.0 >60 or +3 dBA No -2.0 53.5 No 1.7 57.2 No R16 2472 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 58.9 59.4 67.8 8.4 >60 or +3 dBA Yes 4.4 63.8 Yes 2.0 61.4 No R17 2422 Brodalski St, Atwater, CA 95301 64.1 62.1 67.1 5.0 +3 dBA Yes 1.0 63.1 No -4.3 57.8 No R18 2920 Virginia St, Atwater, CA 95301 62.2 61.1 65.8 4.7 +3 dBA Yes 0.7 61.8 No -1.8 59.3 No Note: Bold indicates where project-related traffic is predicted to exceed the increase criteria or cause traffic noise levels to exceed the local exterior noise standard.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx Based upon Table 9, development of Alternative 1 would result in significant traffic noise increases at nine noise sensitive receptor locations. These noise increases could be mitigated throught the use of quiet pavement or construction of 6-foot tall sound walls along the effected senstive receptors.
Based upon Table 10, development of Alternative 2 would result in significant traffic noise increases at nine noise sensitivereceptor locations. These noise increases could be partially mitigated throught the use of quiet pavement. However, not all locations would be fully mitigated through use of quiet pavement. Therefore, construction of 6-foot tall sound walls would be requires along some or all of the effected senstive receptors.
Based upon Table 11, development of Alternative 3 would result in significant traffic noise increases at nine noise sensitivereceptor locations. These noise increases could be partially mitigated throught the use of quiet pavement. However, not all locations would be fully mitigated through use of quiet pavement. Therefore, construction of 6-foot tall sound walls would be requires along some or all of the effected senstive receptors.
Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in Table 4, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The City of Atwater Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance provided that activities do not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Monday to Friday or before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
As shown in Table 4, construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Roadway construction, including sound wall construction activity could occur as close as approximately 25 feet of existing noise-sensitive receptors. At this distance, construction noise would be expected to range between 82 to 96 dBA Lmax. Based upon noise measurements collected at site LT-1, existing maximum daytime noise levels ranged from 63-85 dBA Lmax, a potential increase of 11 dBA. Therefore, project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.
Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours.
Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure 1(b) would help ensure that construction noise impacts remain less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures
1(a) For Alternative 1, quiet pavement should be installed for Bellevue Road along existing sensitive receptors to mitigate the traffic noise increases. In lieu of quiet pavement, minimum 6-foot-tall sound walls should be constructed along the residential uses located north and south of Bellevue Road along the realigned roadway. For Alternatives 2 and 3, minimum 6-foot-tall sound walls should be constructed along the residential uses located north and south of Bellevue Road along the
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx realigned roadway. Figure 6 shows the location of the sound walls. Sound walls should be of masonry type construction.
1(b) The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
Construction shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday to Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays projects within the City of Atwater. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
Timing/Implementation: Implemented prior to approval of grading and/or building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Atwater Community Development Services Department Implementation of mitigation measures 1(a) would reduce traffic-generated noise level increases associated with the project to a less than significant level.
Implementation of mitigation measures 1(b) would help construction noise to remain less than significant level.
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction
City of Atwater, CAFigure 6Recommened Sound Wall Locations Legend
6‐Foot Sound Wall
3 Outdoor Area Noise Level
Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction
R7
R10
R11
R13
R14
R15
R6
R9
R12
R16 R17
R18
Scale 1:190
0 35 70 140 210 280
feet
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx Impact 2: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.
The Table 5 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical on-site construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. However, off-site improvements could occur in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Because the exact location of construction is unknown at this time, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
2 If use of vibratory compactors are required within 25 feet, or less, of a residential structure, preconstruction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. Alternatively, use of hand compaction equipment could be employed to minimize ground vibrations.
Implementation of mitigation measures 2 would reduce groundborne vibration levels to a less than significant level.
Impact 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports within two miles of the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project.
Bellevue Realignment / Reconstruction Project
City of Atwater, CA
Job #240103
February 9, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
\\192.168.68.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240103 Bellevue Realignment Reconstruction Project\Word\Bellevue Realignment CEQA Noise.docx
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.
American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.
ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.
ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.
Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, May 2011.
Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05- 054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.
International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.
International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.
SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics The science of sound.
Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.
ASTC Apparent Sound Transmission Class. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and correct for room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.
A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.
Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.
DNL See definition of Ldn.
IIC Impact Insulation Class. An integer‐number rating of how well a building floor attenuates impact sounds, such as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.
Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.
Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.
L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.
Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.
NIC Noise Isolation Class. A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.
NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class. Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.
Noise Unwanted sound.
NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.05. It is a representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon striking a particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.
RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.
Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.
SEL Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.
SPC Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed to measure the degree of speech privacy provided by a closed room, indicating the degree to which conversations occurring within are kept private from listeners outside the room.
STC Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings/floors, doors, windows and exterior wall configurations. The STC rating is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Threshold The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.
Threshold Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Simple Tone Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches.
Appendix B: Ambient Noise
Measurement Results
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:
Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 0:00 60 69 58 53 Coordinates:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 1:00 55 64 54 49
Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:00 55 66 54 50
Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 57 70 55 51
Thursday, January 18, 2024 4:00 57 69 56 53
Thursday, January 18, 2024 5:00 61 78 61 57
Thursday, January 18, 2024 6:00 58 73 57 56
Thursday, January 18, 2024 7:00 58 69 57 54
Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:00 56 82 53 51
Thursday, January 18, 2024 9:00 53 75 50 49
Thursday, January 18, 2024 10:00 55 78 52 50
Thursday, January 18, 2024 11:00 57 81 54 52
Thursday, January 18, 2024 12:00 55 78 53 49
Thursday, January 18, 2024 13:00 54 82 45 43
Thursday, January 18, 2024 14:00 55 85 45 43
Thursday, January 18, 2024 15:00 53 79 50 45
Thursday, January 18, 2024 16:00 55 80 52 49
Thursday, January 18, 2024 17:00 54 73 52 50
Thursday, January 18, 2024 18:00 51 65 49 44
Thursday, January 18, 2024 19:00 48 63 46 42
Thursday, January 18, 2024 20:00 54 69 53 51
Thursday, January 18, 2024 21:00 56 74 55 52
Thursday, January 18, 2024 22:00 53 74 51 46
Thursday, January 18, 2024 23:00 50 73 46 43
Leq Lmax L50 L90
55 75 51 48
58 71 55 51
48 63 45 42
58 85 57 54
50 64 46 43
61 78 61 57
63 50
CNEL 63 Night % 50
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
Thursday, January 18, 2024 Thursday, January 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
(37.3605400, -120.6221322)
Appendix B1: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bellevue Realignment Reconcstrucion North of Bellevue Road
LDL 820-5
69 64
66 70 69
78 73
69 82
75 78
81 78
82 85
79 80
73 65 63
69 74 74 73
53 49 50 51 53
57 56 54
51 49 50
52 49
43 43
45 49 50
44 42
51 52
46 43
60 55 55 57 57
61 58 58 56
53 55 57 55 54 55
53 55 54
51 48
54 56
53 50
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
Bellevue Rd.
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:
Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 0:00 70 82 67 60 Coordinates:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 1:00 70 80 67 60
Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:00 71 81 69 62
Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 73 84 71 65
Thursday, January 18, 2024 4:00 74 81 73 69
Thursday, January 18, 2024 5:00 76 91 75 72
Thursday, January 18, 2024 6:00 76 85 75 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 7:00 76 83 76 72
Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:00 75 86 75 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 9:00 75 83 75 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 10:00 75 82 75 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 11:00 76 87 76 72
Thursday, January 18, 2024 12:00 76 89 76 72
Thursday, January 18, 2024 13:00 75 84 74 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 14:00 75 84 74 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 15:00 76 87 75 72
Thursday, January 18, 2024 16:00 76 82 76 73
Thursday, January 18, 2024 17:00 76 88 76 73
Thursday, January 18, 2024 18:00 75 82 75 71
Thursday, January 18, 2024 19:00 74 83 73 69
Thursday, January 18, 2024 20:00 74 83 73 69
Thursday, January 18, 2024 21:00 73 83 72 68
Thursday, January 18, 2024 22:00 73 85 72 66
Thursday, January 18, 2024 23:00 71 84 70 63
Leq Lmax L50 L90
75 84 75 71
73 84 71 65
73 82 72 68
76 89 76 73
70 80 67 60
76 91 75 72
80 75
CNEL 80 Night % 25
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(37.3572807, -120.6383190)
Thursday, January 18, 2024 Thursday, January 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-1
Appendix B2: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bellevue Realignment Reconcstrucion North of SR 99
82 80 81
84 81
91 85
83 86
83 82
87 89
84 84
87 82
88 82 83 83 83
85 84
60 60 62
65 69
72 71 72 71 71 71 72 72 71 71 72 73 73 71 69 69 68 66
63 70 70 71 73 74
76 76 76 75 75 75 76 76 75 75 76 76 76 75 74 74 73 73 71 25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
Bellevue Rd.
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:
Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 0:00 56 73 55 51 Coordinates:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 1:00 55 71 54 50
Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:00 57 75 55 52
Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 60 78 57 54
Thursday, January 18, 2024 4:00 62 76 61 58
Thursday, January 18, 2024 5:00 63 80 61 59
Thursday, January 18, 2024 6:00 61 77 58 56
Thursday, January 18, 2024 7:00 62 79 59 56
Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:00 63 86 58 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 9:00 62 84 57 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 10:00 61 77 58 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 11:00 62 80 59 57
Thursday, January 18, 2024 12:00 60 78 58 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 13:00 61 79 53 49
Thursday, January 18, 2024 14:00 62 83 55 51
Thursday, January 18, 2024 15:00 62 79 58 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 16:00 66 90 59 56
Thursday, January 18, 2024 17:00 65 92 60 57
Thursday, January 18, 2024 18:00 62 81 58 54
Thursday, January 18, 2024 19:00 58 78 55 52
Thursday, January 18, 2024 20:00 60 77 58 55
Thursday, January 18, 2024 21:00 61 76 59 56
Thursday, January 18, 2024 22:00 58 74 55 51
Thursday, January 18, 2024 23:00 55 74 53 49
Leq Lmax L50 L90
62 81 58 55
60 75 57 53
58 76 53 49
66 92 60 57
55 71 53 49
63 80 61 59
66 77
CNEL 66 Night % 23
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(37.3609562, -120.6411447)
Thursday, January 18, 2024 Thursday, January 18, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-3
Appendix B3: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Bellevue Realignment Reconcstrucion North of Bellevue Road
73 71
75 78 76
80 77 79
86 84
77 80
78 79
83 79
90 92
81 78 77 76 74 74
51 50 52
54 58 59
56 56 55 55 55 57 55
49 51
55 56 57
54 52
55 56
51 49
56 55
57 60
62 63 61 62 63 62 61 62 60 61 62 62
66 65
62 58 60 61
58 55
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 95
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3 Bellevue Rd.
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results
Project #:
Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Grove Avenue North of Bellevue 800 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 33 15 7 57.42 Bellevue Road East of Grove Ave 1,830 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 58 27 12 61.03 Bellevue Road East of Vine Ave 40 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 5 2 1 44.44 Bellevue Road West of N Winton Way 2,010 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 62 29 13 61.45 Vine Ave North of Bellevue 1,720 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 56 26 12 60.7 23 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Eve
%
Day
Segment Roadway Segment ADT %
Appendix C-1
211206
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Existing Traffic
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Offset
Speed Distance (dB)
% Hvy.
Trucks
% Med.
Trucks
Night
%
Project #:
Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Grove Avenue North of Bellevue 1,200 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 44 20 9 59.1 2 Bellevue Road East of Grove Ave 2,600 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 73 34 16 62.53 Bellevue Road East of Vine Ave 200 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 13 6 3 51.34 Bellevue Road West of N Winton Way 3,000 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 80 37 17 63.1 5 Vine Ave North of Bellevue 2,300 76 0 24 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 67 31 15 61.9 26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
Appendix C-2FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model 211206Design Year
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.
Trucks
% Hvy.
Trucks Speed Distance
Project #:
Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Grove Avenue North of Bellevue 800 76 0 24 1.0% 3.0% 45 50 0 39 18 9 58.5 2 Bellevue Road East of Grove Ave 7,100 76 0 24 1.0% 3.0% 45 50 0 169 79 36 67.93 Bellevue Road East of Vine Ave 5,500 76 0 24 1.0% 3.0% 45 50 0 143 66 31 66.8 4 Bellevue Road West of N Winton Way 5,800 76 0 24 1.0% 3.0% 45 50 0 148 69 32 67.15 Vine Ave North of Bellevue 1,500 76 0 24 1.0% 3.0% 45 50 0 60 28 13 61.2 28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
Appendix C-3FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model 211206Design Year Plus Project
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.
Trucks
% Hvy.
Trucks Speed Distance
BELLEVUE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION/REALIGNMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PAGE 121
APPENDIX C: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Draft Memorandum
Date: February 16, 2024
To: Steve McMurtry, De Novo Planning Group
From: Ron Ramos, PE and Nahal Hakim, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment – CEQA VMT Analysis WC24-4056
Fehr & Peers completed a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis to support the Bellevue Road Reconstruction/Realignment (Project) in the City of Atwater, California. The analysis indicates that the project results in a reduction in VMT. This memorandum provides a brief introduction to the project and background information, a summary of the model enhancement and forecast, and the VMT analysis results.
Introduction and Background
Within the project area, Bellevue Road is designated as a Major Collector on the California Roadway System Map and categorized as a Four-Lane Urban Major Arterial in the City of Atwater General Plan. Because Bellevue Road is currently closed to traffic within the developed section of the Dole Packaged Foods campus, drivers must take lengthy detours on local roads, resulting in additional VMT. Drivers traveling from/to the north side of the City of Bellevue to the SR 99/Westside Boulevard are the most affected by the road closure. The project aims to realign and reconstruct a segment of Bellevue Road between Grove Avenue and Parade Street, located adjacent to the City of Atwater city limits. As a result, the project would enhance regional mobility for both goods and people along a significant roadway, reducing total VMT.
The study adopted the Three-County Travel Demand Model (TCTDM) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Air Quality Conformity Model. Although the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Model was initially considered, it was not selected because of the lack of daily roadway data for validation purposes. In addition, the current MCAG model version doesn’t include the AM and PM peak hour traffic which is the available data to enhance the model in the study area. The efforts to enhance the travel demand model were extended to both future No Build (Bellevue Road remains unconnected) and Build (Bellevue Road connected) scenarios. An analysis of boundary VMT was performed, comparing the No Build and
Steve McMurtry
February 16, 2024
Build scenarios to assess the impact of Bellevue Road Reconstruction/ Realignment on VMT.
Boundary VMT was further stratified by speed bin, which is needed to evaluate emissions for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality and CEQA greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses.
TCTDM Model Base Year Enhancement
Model enhancement, with a specific focus on the study area, was conducted to demonstrate the model's capacity to accurately predict future traffic volume and subsequent VMT. Fehr & Peers has been working on different versions of the TCTDM model making improvements over different projects such as SR 59 in Merced, CA. The most recent effort was on the Caltrans approved base year of the TCTDM for the Los Banos Pioneer Road Widening PA&ED (includes the improvements on SR 59 corridor), encompassing San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties, was adopted for this study. The model's base year network includes Bellevue Road connected despite its current closure to traffic within the Dole Packaged Foods campus. Therefore, as the initial step, the network was updated by removing the unconnected section of Bellevue Road and rerunning it. In this study, the term "As-Received” refers to the Los Banos Pioneer Road Widening PA&ED with Bellevue Road disconnected model. The As-Received model was further adjusted to improve statistical validation for the Bellevue Road study area.
In order to evaluate the travel model’s performance in replicating existing conditions, the TCTDM As-Received base year results were compared to the static travel model validation thresholds from the 2017 California Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Guidelines published by the California Transportation Commission as follows:
• Model/Count Ratio: while there is no specified threshold for this metric, Fehr & Peers uses a threshold of “Within +/-10%” of the sum of all locations • Correlation Coefficient: greater than 0.88
• Percent Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): less than 40%
• Link Volumes within the Allowed Deviation Limits: at least 75% This study aims to significantly improve model performance across the four metrics through three rounds of model enhancement. It is outside the scope of work of this analysis to fully validate the model to Caltrans standards. The As-Received base year model is compared with existing traffic demand during the one-hour AM peak and PM peak, and the enhancement statistics are shown in Table 1.
Steve McMurtry
February 16, 2024
Table 1: Base Year Model Enhancement Results
2017 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines Model Validation Standards Metrics Threshold
“As-Received” Post-Adjustment
AM Peak
Period
PM Peak
Period
AM Peak
Period
PM Peak
Period
Volume-to-Count Ratio
(Sum of All Locations) 1 Within 10% -51% -38% -28% -9%
Percent Links within Caltrans
Deviation Allowance 2
At Least
75% 29% 29% 79% 83%
Percent Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) 2 Below 40% 60% 59% 61% 57%
Correlation Coefficient At Least
0.88 0.92 0.86 0.73 0.77
Number of Locations 24 24 24 24
Notes:
Bold indicates criteria was met.
1. Although no specific threshold is specified, Fehr & Peers uses a threshold of "Within +/-10%" of the sum of all locations.
2. Static Validation Criteria and Thresholds, 2017 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission.
Source: 2017 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, and Fehr & Peers 2024.
The As-Received metrics suggest the model is not replicating traffic conditions in the study area.
Therefore, three iterations were conducted to improve model performance within the study area.
The enhancement process for each iteration is as follows:
• Iteration 1:
The configuration of the SR 99/Westside Boulevard interchange was modified by removing an additional link within the interchange and eliminating the connection of Central Avenue between the north and south sections of the interchange. • Iteration 2
The east leg of Fruitland Avenue and Grove Avenue was added. • Iteration 3
Speed limits along Liberty Avenue were adjusted to reflect the existing conditions more accurately on this corridor.
The enhancement process has resulted in substantial improvement in the model’s performance in terms of static validation criteria. The peak hour volume to count ratio increased from 0.49 to 0.72 during the AM period and from 0.68 to 0.91 during the PM period. Additionally, the final calibrated model now has over 75% of the links meeting the Caltrans Deviation Allowance target for both AM and PM. The calibrated model exhibits better RMSE and Correlation Coefficient
Steve McMurtry
February 16, 2024
results for both AM and PM. Therefore, the results indicate that the enhanced model is a better fit than the As-Received model.
TCTDM Model Future Traffic Forecasts
The TCTDM 2045 future year scenario for the Los Banos Pioneer Road Widening PA&ED was also adopted for this study. The adjustments made during the base year enhancement were applied to the 2045 model to maintain consistency. Bellevue Road was upgraded to a four-lane urban major arterial to conform with the City of Atwater General Plan. The future model was run for two scenarios:
1. 2045 No Build: Bellevue Road disconnected to the east and west of the Dole Packaged Foods campus.
2. 2045 Build: Bellevue Road connected to the east and west of the Dole Packaged Foods campus.
The future traffic difference and traffic patterns between the two scenarios were reviewed for reasonableness, and the findings were summarized for the VMT calculations outlined in the next section.
CEQA Vehicle-Miles Traveled Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013) instructed the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update CEQA Guidelines to remove congestion-based analysis (such as level of service analysis) from CEQA Transportation analysis, and to install a new metric. The intent of SB 743 was to encourage infill development, promote healthier communities through active transportation (e.g., walking and bicycling), and align CEQA transportation analysis to aid California in meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets set by other pieces of legislation (i.e., AB 32). Ultimately, SB 743 has shifted CEQA transportation analysis from measuring the effects of a project on drivers, to measuring the environmental effects of driving generated by a project.
Adopted in December 2018, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines notes that VMT is the most appropriate metric for the analysis of impacts in the transportation section of CEQA analysis.
To understand the VMT impact of connecting Bellevue Road, the following metrics were developed:
• Project’s Effect on Daily VMT (Boundary VMT): The sum of VMT associated with all the links within certain boundaries (links volumes multiplied by link distance in miles). • Project’s Effect on VMT (Boundary VMT) by Speed Bin and by Time Period: An evaluation of the change in total vehicle travel within certain boundaries and per 5 mph interval speed bins, compared between Build and No Build scenarios. Boundary VMT by
Steve McMurtry
February 16, 2024
speed bin is needed to evaluate emissions for CEQA air quality and CEQA greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses.
Three boundaries were defined to summarize the VMT analysis, as shown in Attachment A. The first two VMT boundaries of City of Atwater and the Atwater Sphere of Influence, are based on the political jurisdictions, and may not fully capture the effects on VMT, particularly when considering how traffic flows across different areas. To address this limitation and ensure a more comprehensive assessment, we have introduced a third boundary, which we refer to as the "Expanded Impact Boundary." This boundary extends beyond the city limits of Atwater to include neighboring communities such as Livingston and Winton. By doing so, we aim to encompass the broader area influenced by changes in traffic patterns, thereby providing a more accurate representation of the project's impact on VMT.
The total VMT results for each scenario are presented in Table 2. The proposed realignment/ reconstruction of Bellevue Road is anticipated to reduce the total VMT across these boundaries.
Table 2: Total Boundary VMT
No Build Build Net Change
Within City Limit 508,468 499,769 -6,403
Within Sphere of Influence 1,277,738 1,271,335 -8,699
Within Area of Influence
Boundary 2,987,068 2,979,712 -7,356
Source: TCTDM, Fehr & Peers, February 2024.
As mentioned earlier, boundary VMT evaluates the change in total vehicle travel. Boundary VMT are further stratified by speed bin for air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. VMT by speed bin (5 mile per hour intervals) was calculated for both the Build and No Build scenarios across all time periods. The results of Daily VMT by speed bin within each boundary area are presented in Table 3. A slightly higher distribution of VMT within higher speed ranges was obtained for the Build scenario. This observation may suggest potential mobility improvement and congestion relief in the Build scenario. The findings across different time periods were also consistent with the Daily VMT results. Additional details on VMT per speed bin for different time periods are provided in Attachment B.
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com Table 3: Daily VMT by Speed Bin
Speed Bin
Within City Limit Within Sphere of Influence Within Expanded Impact Boundary No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build
VMT % VMT % VMT % VMT % VMT % VMT %
0 - 4.99 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
5 - 9.99 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
10 - 14.99 13,114 3% 13,210 3% 21,645 2% 21,767 2% 38,337 1% 38,881 1% 15 - 19.99 11,383 2% 11,183 2% 19,778 2% 19,580 2% 64,766 2% 64,456 2% 20 - 24.99 16,213 3% 15,619 3% 25,889 2% 32,665 3% 59,769 2% 65,854 2% 25 - 29.99 18,414 4% 15,331 3% 28,435 2% 27,964 2% 91,707 3% 114,206 4% 30 - 34.99 28,807 6% 28,884 6% 67,510 5% 57,188 4% 221,907 7% 164,933 6% 35 - 39.99 87,771 17% 63,664 13% 135,238 11% 106,117 8% 341,230 11% 335,367 11% 40 - 44.99 70,692 14% 91,276 18% 217,749 17% 234,531 18% 556,221 19% 636,081 21% 45 - 49.99 141,890 28% 141,111 28% 459,038 36% 463,025 36% 923,016 31% 874,101 29% 50 - 54.99 79,021 16% 78,731 16% 203,861 16% 210,738 17% 491,861 16% 488,370 16% 55 - 59.99 10,121 2% 10,078 2% 15,131 1% 15,059 1% 15,235 1% 15,150 1% 60 - 64.99 31,042 6% 30,683 6% 83,465 7% 82,702 7% 183,019 6% 182,314 6% 65+ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total Boundary VMT 508,468 100% 499,770 100% 1,277,739 100% 1,271,336 100% 2,987,068 100% 2,979,712 100% Source: TCTDM, Fehr & Peers, February 2024.
Attachments
Attachment A VMT Boundary Limits
Attachment B VMT per Speed Bin for All Time Periods
Attachment A:
VMT Boundary Limits
Attachment B:
VMT per Speed Bin for
All Time Periods
VMT Estimates per Speed Bins – City Limit
Speed Bin
Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Mid-day Period Evening Period 2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
0 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 - 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 - 15 13,114 13,210 3,422 3,429 3,268 3,280 6,424 6,502 0 0 15 - 20 11,383 11,183 1,958 1,928 2,402 2,365 4,689 4,570 2,334 2,320 20 - 25 16,213 15,619 3,668 3,339 3,700 3,650 7,546 7,331 1,300 1,300 25 - 30 18,414 15,331 11,169 8,809 2,580 1,867 3,934 3,927 732 728 30 - 35 28,807 28,884 14,107 15,806 3,745 4,166 9,110 7,141 1,846 1,771 35 - 40 87,771 63,664 41,696 17,617 13,406 13,190 27,648 28,155 5,022 4,702 40 - 45 70,692 91,276 8,854 31,698 9,289 8,705 49,093 47,648 3,456 3,225 45 - 50 141,890 141,111 3,959 3,697 15,172 15,146 121,745 121,132 1,014 1,136 50 - 55 79,021 78,731 23,690 24,222 42,731 42,252 10,130 9,801 2,470 2,456 55 - 60 10,121 10,078 0 0 9,718 9,676 0 0 403 402
60 - 65 31,042 30,683 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,042 30,683
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 508,468 499,769 112,522 110,544 106,010 104,296 240,318 236,206 49,619 48,722
VMT Estimates per Speed Bins – City of Atwater Sphere of Influence Speed Bin
Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Mid-day Period Evening Period 2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
0 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 - 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 - 15 21,645 21,767 5,227 5,242 6,133 6,158 10,285 10,367 0 0 15 - 20 19,778 19,580 3,917 3,884 3,983 3,947 8,457 8,342 3,421 3,407 20 - 25 25,889 32,665 6,186 8,159 5,356 6,835 12,369 15,693 1,978 1,977 25 - 30 28,435 27,964 20,460 20,219 2,689 1,953 4,154 4,098 1,131 1,694 30 - 35 67,510 57,188 43,055 33,774 7,212 7,810 15,001 13,438 2,241 2,166 35 - 40 135,238 106,117 74,436 49,925 21,989 17,399 33,187 33,423 5,627 5,369 40 - 45 217,749 234,531 21,863 53,654 32,880 36,454 156,552 138,155 6,454 6,268 45 - 50 459,038 463,025 63,249 53,580 70,993 70,930 322,575 336,193 2,221 2,323 50 - 55 203,861 210,738 39,896 48,196 100,146 99,162 45,453 45,031 18,366 18,349 55 - 60 15,131 15,059 35 23 13,820 13,758 101 112 1,175 1,166 60 - 65 83,465 82,702 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,465 82,702
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 1,277,738 1,271,335 278,325 276,656 265,201 264,406 608,133 604,853 126,079 125,420
VMT Estimates per Speed Bins – Expanded Impact Boundary Speed Bin
Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Mid-day Period Evening Period 2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
2045
No Build
2045
Build
0 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 - 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 - 15 38,337 38,881 9841 10,480 10,391 10,416 18,105 17,985 0 0 15 - 20 64,766 64,456 32946 32,363 7,872 7,838 17,008 17,329 6,940 6,926 20 - 25 59,769 65,854 23674 25,359 9,919 11,384 23,337 26,273 2,839 2,838 25 - 30 91,707 114,206 42402 66,647 15,132 14,283 29,088 27,628 5,085 5,647 30 - 35 221,907 164,933 134612 78,023 30,271 30,564 48,745 48,148 8,279 8,198 35 - 40 341,230 335,367 126857 126,607 55,987 49,943 148,350 149,043 10,035 9,774 40 - 45 556,221 636,081 91725 122,276 98,233 116,488 346,256 377,486 20,007 19,831 45 - 50 923,016 874,101 97912 98,883 161,258 146,887 654,841 619,250 9,005 9,082 50 - 55 491,861 488,370 109097 106,292 215,855 215,624 127,279 126,880 39,630 39,573 55 - 60 15,235 15,150 46 35 13,820 13,758 101 112 1,268 1,245 60 - 65 183,019 182,314 0 0 0 0 0 0 183,019 182,314
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 2,987,068 2,979,712 669,112 666,965 618,737 617,185 1,413,111 1,410,133 286,108 285,429
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF ATWATER
RESOLUTION NO. 3XXX-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATWATER APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENT NO. X AMENDING 2024-2025
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET REGARDING BELLEVUE
ROAD REHABILITATION/REALIGNMENT
PROJECT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST
ESTIMATES (PS&E)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atwater adopted Resolution No. 3461-24 adopting the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year Budget on June 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, from time to time, and in order to operate effectively, it is necessary to amend said budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby approve Budget Amendment No. X to the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year Budget as follows:
SECTION 1: Increasing Measure V Regional Fund budget in the Expense and Revenue accounts for Fiscal Year 2024-25 regarding Bellevue Road Rehabilitation/Realignment Project.
Increase Budget
(Revenue)
0010.1080.1068 Measure V Regional
Bellevue Road
Realignment Project
PSRE & (PS&E)
$2,267,196
Increase Budget
(Expense)
0010.1080.V017 Measure V RegionalBellevue Road
Realignment Project
(PS&E)
$2,037,362
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution appends to the original budget document that is available in the Finance Department and the City Clerk/Board Clerk’s office.
The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 9th day of September 2024.
Resolution No. 3XXX-24 Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
________________________________
MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK